Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

Bill to be considered upon Tuesday next.

ABINGDON MARKET PLACE BILL [Lords]

UNION THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL [Lords]

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, brief questions and answers proved a blessing for us all. I hope that we shall have the same today.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Meals

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account she is taking of the representations received since January on her consideration of the price of school meals for the next 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement last Tuesday, there is to be no increase in the charge for school meals in September. Local authorities will be reimbursed for the income they would otherwise lose this financial year, and consultations with their associations about how best to do this have already started.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's answer, but will she make it clear that this represents a change of Government policy and that there will be a continuing subsidy to school meals rather than merely a deferment for a short period of the date of an increase?

Mrs. Williams: Consideration is being given to the consequence of this decision for future years.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the right hon. Lady say what proportion of total current expenditure on schools will now be represented by the subsidy on school meals as a result of the decision?

Mrs. Williams: I cannot give that information without notice, but the net cost of the school meals service is £377 million for 1978–79.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What has happened to the Government's pledge to halve the subsidy on school meals by 1980, which I think was given in a White Paper? Furthermore, has the right hon. Lady any plans to have any consultations


with the teachers so that their role in supervising meals may be clarified?

Mrs. Williams: I am well aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) indicated that the Conservative Party felt that the charge for school meals should be increased. The orginal decision to allow the subsidy to decline was taken before two years of pay policy. It is in the light of that that the Government feel that families badly need help with school meal charges.

School Leaver Projects (European Community Grants)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what European Economic Community funds are being made available to the Inner London Education Authority and other education authorities in England or Wales for projects concerning school leavers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): A programme of pilot projects is being developed under the Education Ministers' resolution of 13th December 1976 on the preparation of young people for work, and it will be jointly financed by member States and by the Community. The Commission will make grants totalling about £105,000 per year over three years to the Inner London, Sheffield and Bradford education authorities.

Mr. Spearing: Whatever the merits of these pilot projects, which are probably required, why is it that they cannot be financed either by local authorities in the normal course of action or by the Government? Why does the EEC have to come into local education matters?

Miss Jackson: I take my hon. Friend's point that he would wish these projects to be totally financed from this country. However, in view of the substantial sums that we pay into the coffers of the Community, there is something to be said for getting back as much as we can.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not extremely important that encouragement should be given to experiments of this sort? Might there not be further initiative from the Department to ensure that children may spend more time out of school buildings in order better to pursue their preparation for work?

Miss Jackson: It has been the policy of my Department for a considerable period to seek to encourage projects of this kind.

Adult Literary

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the future of the adult literacy programme.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): Since my right hon. Friend made her announcement on 5th December last about future provision for adult literacy, my Department has received 80 letters, of which 33 were from hon. Members.

Mr. Price: Does not my hon. Friend agree that those letters represent considerable concern about the whole future of the adult literacy programme? Could he tell us what arrangements he is making, now that central funding has ceased, to monitor the effects, particularly among local authorities that are refusing to continue provision of this service or to help the voluntary bodies which have tremendous experience in this area? If they fall down on their job, what will my hon Friend do about it?

Mr. Oakes: We are keeping a constant watch, but I should make clear that Government involvement has not ceased. It has been transferred to local authorities, where it belongs. The provision of £1·3 million was made in the rate support grant and I am pleased to tell the House that, on the whole, local authorities are carrying out their obligations in regard to adult literacy.

Miss Fookes: Does the Minister appreciate that many local authorities are finding it difficult to continue the service? What about the position of voluntary organisations which are running schemes and can see the money running out on them?

Mr. Oakes: We are making provision to help some of the voluntary bodies, as are local education authorities. I have three instances of schemes in Avon, Birmingham and the Wirral where voluntary schemes have been taken over by local authorities. That is the proper way to proceed.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that money devoted to this sort of education—what one might call the lower end—probably brings greater returns in terms of human happiness and usefulness than any other education expenditure?

Mr. Oakes: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that about 150,000 students have benefited from the provisions of the scheme since 1975. We have had enormous co-operation from volunteers and from BBC programmes such as "On the Move". It has been a great success.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is the Minister aware that the Cambridge reading project, which has done admirable work on adult literacy in my constituency, has been deprived of its central funding and that the county council, as a result of cuts in the rate support grant and the new distribution formula, is finding it very difficult to make up the deficiency? Can the hon. Gentleman give some personal involvement in this matter?

Mr. Oakes: The project's first application should be to the local education authority, but if the hon. Gentleman will write to me I shall look into the matter to see whether I can help.

Disabled Children

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she remains satisfied with the educational provision for disabled children.

Miss Margaret Jackson: As I told my hon. Friend on 14th February, my right hon. Friend will continue to seek ways of improving the quality of special education.

Mr. Ashley: That is a very complacent reply. As only 10,000 out of 750,000 children in hospital are receiving any sort of education, is it not time that the Department woke up, did something about it and consulted other Departments? Will the Minister consult the Department of Health and Social Security, the National Union of Teachers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and report back to the House within a month about what they propose to do?

Miss Jackson: I am touched by my hon. Friend's faith in the speed of response

of the people he has mentioned. Education of children in hospitals is a difficult area because so many children are in hospital for a very short period. There has been an excellent document recently from the NUT which we and the DHSS are studying. We hope to make progress in this area.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Under-Secretary think that the maintained sector of the education system is yet capable of dealing with disabled young people, whether they be partially sighted, hard of hearing or disabled in other ways? Does she not consider that the specialist education units for the deaf and the blind will be necessary in the foreseeable future in order to ensure that these deserving groups receive an adequate education and can participate fully in adult life later?

Miss Jackson: It may be that many of these units, which are doing excellent work, will need to continue, but in a number of parts of the country it has been possible to educate more disabled children in ordinary schools and we are studying the progress made in this way.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my hon. Friend accept that access is often the main problem in educating disabled children in ordinary schools? In this place we have two simple ramps which make the House available to a substantial number of people. Will my hon. Friend please advise local education authorities of the importance of access in the provision of education for disabled children in ordinary schools?

Miss Jackson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. We seek constantly to remind local authorities of the importance of these matters.

Universities (Finance)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has held with the University Grants Committee on financial support to the universities.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend discussed the subject extensively when she met the committee on 17th November last, and the firm and indicated figures of recurrent grant for the years 1978–79 to 1981–82 which she announced on 10th April took its views into account.

Mr. Silvester: Why do current grant and the provisional figures that have been quoted make no allowance for the rectification of the demoralising anomaly in university teachers' pay?

Mr. Oakes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations on this subject are continuing. The figures anticipate pay rises of between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent and price rises of between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. As my right hon. Friend and I have told the House, if there were substantial increases in those figures as a result of the negotiations on university teachers' pay, the cash limits would be altered accordingly.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that the latter part of his reply will be very much welcomed by those who believe that it is the Government who are resisting any negotiated attempt to get the anomaly put right more quickly? Will he make clear that if Committee B could propose tomorrow a rapid rectification, it would have his support?

Mr. Oakes: I hope that the matter can be resolved quickly. The whole House feels that university teachers have been extremely patient. The industrial action that has been proposed, particularly the refusal to mark examination papers, would not help the negotiations and would create a great deal of hardship for many students. I hope that it is resolved before then.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large sums of public expenditure devoted to universities are a clear example of public money being provided without any public accountability? Is it not time that the Government looked at the relationship between the Government and the providers of the money and the universities? We are denied any opportunity of asking Questions on industrial relations or other matters involved with universities, and it is time that this was changed.

Mr. Oakes: It is an ancient system in this country that the financing of universities goes via the University Grants Committee, and I would not want to change the system substantially. I have never found that my hon. Friend in particular or other hon. Members have felt inhibited from asking Questions

about matters concerning universities and union representation.

Mr. Welsh: May I draw the Minister's attention to the concern expressed by Dr. Jack Gray and the Scottish Association for Asian Studies about cut-backs and the possible withdrawal of these courses from Scottish universities? Will the hon. Gentleman meet the UGC and press that funds should be made available to maintain these courses at present levels?

Mr. Oakes: I shall make the hon. Gentleman's views known to the committee, though it is probably aware of the matters to which he has referred Perhaps I can discuss the matter with the committee at our next meeting.

Assessment of Performance

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the development of national sample testing by her Department's assessment of performance unit.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes.

Mr. Forman: Why have the Government been so slow in acting upon Conservative advice in this area, and why are they so timid and apologetic in their application of objective sampling? Does not the Secretary of State agree that information of this sort is an indispensable basis for raising educational standards?

Mrs. Williams: I do not follow the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The assessment of performance unit was set up in 1975 by a Labour Government after a Conservative Government had been in power for four years and had set up nothing. We are about to proceed this year towards the assessment of mathematics, next year to the assessment of languages and the year after to the assessment of science. Therefore, we are moving with all due speed. I believe that the monitoring suggested is extremely sensible and will be very useful to the educational performances of this country.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the raising of standards the methods suggested by the assessment of performance unit are very much preferable to some of the


suggestions from the Conservative Party, which is creating a system of competition between individual children with results published at individual schools? Does she also agree that the recent proposals to reintroduce selective education and grammar schools would tend not to raise standards at all?

Mrs. Williams: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I can think of nothing that would be more upsetting for education than to go back to the reintroduction of selection. It is astonishing that education spokesmen of the Conservative Party are now suggesting that they should bring back grammar schools when it was the Leader of the Opposition under whom the proportion of children going to comprehensive schools increased from 28 per cent. to 55 per cent. It is hard to tell where the Conservative Party stands.
As to testing, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The experience of the United States, which attempted to test every pupil in certain States, led to the following conclusion by the National Education Association, a non-political body:
The blanket use of tests … in some state assessment and local testing programmes appears to require inordinate amounts of time and resources on the part of teachers, other personnel involved … and the students themselves.
I believe that that experience is wholly borne out by our own experience in the past.

Mr. Raison: Is the Secretary of State prepared to take a less dogmatic view about the question of general testing? It is not a matter of creating competition. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is a question of finding out what levels of performance exist among children, among schools and among the national system without any element of competition?

Mrs. Williams: That is exactly what the assessment of performance unit is concerned with. It is based upon a light sampling test amounting to 2 per cent. of the children in the country. It is the considered view of those represented on the APU's governing body, which consists of teachers, educationists and a wide range of people, that this is the appropriate way to monitor performance.

It is not the Labour Party which is being dogmatic. It is the attempt to return to testing every pupil every year or so that is dogmatic.

Dr. Boyson: We welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the sample testing. However, is she not aware that most parents are concerned about the standard of achievement of their own child and the standards of the schools to which they are going compared with the national standards?
Although we do not want the publication of children's names, many of my hon. Friends and I believe that parents should know the standards achieved by their own children on the accountability talked about by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) on the last Question and also the standards of the schools that they are attending compared with the national standards. Parents have a right to have that information if their children are to have a real chance in life.

Mrs. Williams: Of course, we agree that they have a right to that information. That is why this Government have asked all schools to inform parents when they may see the teachers of their children and when they may see the head teachers. In addition to that, it is open to a parent to ask a teacher—indeed, it is a daily experience—how the children are doing. The evidence that I have put before the House based upon the testing in the United States shows that testing of the kind that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) continually promotes does absolutely nothing to improve the standards of education in schools—on the contrary.

Teacher Training Candidates

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the advice given in schools to pupils wishing to go to teacher training colleges, in view of the difficulties recently experienced by young teachers in obtaining jobs.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My Department circulates annually a new edition of its booklet "Careers in Teaching" to all careers teachers and careers officers in England and Wales. Recent editions have


included advice about the effects of the reduced number of training places.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the possible serious effects that can come from the present wastage of teachers due to their unemployment? Is she aware, for instance, that there are 400 applicants for only 40 places in my county and that a large number of teachers were employed in job creation schemes last winter? Does she realise that this leads to many people in the sixth form who would otherwise have become teachers now withdrawing from doing this and that the number of those intending to go on to teacher training colleges is down to one-sixth of the previous figure obtaining in some schools? Does she realise that this will lead to a serious situation in two or three years' time? What is her reaction to it?

Miss Jackson: We are anxious that fewer pupils should go into teacher training. We have reduced the number of places. We are anxious, however, to maintain the standards of those who attend teacher training. Nevertheless, we have done what we can, as the hon. Gentleman will know, through the rate support grant settlement, to make more money available for teacher employment. We hope and believe that local authorities will use the money in this way.

Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that future requirements for teaching staff should take into account the need to reduce the size of classes? Will she, therefore, reassure young people who are thinking of entering teaching that there is a worthwhile future ahead of them? Will she also press for the necessary public expenditure to be set aside in order to ensure that we can have smaller classes?

Miss Jackson: Yes, Sir.

University Entrants

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is aware of the widespread concern about the continuing small proportion of students from a manual worker background entering university: and what action she intends to take to resolve the problem.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend and I fully share this concern. What might be done to increase participation by this group is one of the matters on which my

Department has invited views in its recent discussion document "Higher Education into the 1990s". Copies of the document are available in the Library.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that for the last 50 years the proportion of undergraduates with a background of fathers with a manual occupation has remained unchanged at about 20 to 25 per cent.? Does he agree that this eventually percolates through to the higher echelons of the Civil Service, to the great detriment and disadvantage of Labour Governments? Will he consider setting up a working party of sons and daughters of working men to see whether we can seek a remedy to this situation?

Mr. Oakes: I cannot go back 50 years at the moment, but I can confirm that in 1976 24 per cent. of successful university applicants were children of manual workers, and this proportion has tended to decline marginally over the last few years.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister confirm that the purpose of our educational system is not to assist Labour Governments? Will he confirm that the Government will bring no pressure on universities to apply any form of positive discrimination regarding non-educational qualifications for entry to universities?

Mr. Oakes: I am not talking about positive discrimination, which can be insulting. However, I am concerned at the type of figure which shows that 50 per cent of the places in universities are taken by occupation groups whose parents represent 25 per cent. of the population. As the university population will inevitably decline in the 1980s because of the decline in the birth rate, universities must pay particular regard to the matter.

Miss Joan Lestor: I support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Does not the Minister agree, however, that it is not only the section that he mentions that is at risk? There is also the maintenance of children in sixth forms and children and young people going into further education. The lack of support for them militates particularly against the lower income groups.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend makes a considerable point. The number of applications for universities from this group are less than they would otherwise be. I


am concerned that financial considerations should not deter potential higher education students from staying on in full-time education beyond the age of 16. But it is important to recognise that a system of mandatory grants for 16 to 19-yearolds would be very expensive.

Mr. William Shelton: I believe I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister will tell me whether this is so—that the proportion in this country is higher than in Europe. It is higher than the proportion in France or Germany. Does the hon. Gentleman have those figures with him?

Mr. Oakes: I do not have the figures with me. The types of education provided in European universities, the staff-student ratio, and so on, are so totally different from our system that it would be misleading to give figures. On all sides of the House, we would be entirely complacent to accept the present figures. Something must be done to improve them.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that most people who send their children to private and so-called public schools do so because the classes are very small and, therefore, the teacher contact with each child is much greater than it is in State schools? Does not this underline that we need to reduce the number of children in our classes, to utilise all the teachers that we have available and to put more money into State education, so that the teachers will have smaller classes and can therefore teach the children better? Does my hon. Friend agree that this would help a great deal to ensure that the sons and daughters of manual workers have greater access to higher education?

Mr. Oakes: It might help somewhat. There is no doubt that class size and performance have a great relationship to each other, but many other factors are involved. I think that my hon. Friend hit upon one of them before, and that is money.

Dr. Boyson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are as concerned about this matter as any Labour Members? Compassion and social ability are not the monopoly of the Left. Does it not strike the Minister that the decline in the proportional intake to universities

from the manual working classes has come at the same time as we have moved to comprehensive schools? These trends may be working in country and small town areas, but may it not be that in down-town areas in the centres of cities social ability has been reduced and that the deprived child from the poor background is not getting the way through that he did with good grammar schools?

Mr. Oakes: That is a travesty of the truth. It is because O-levels and A-levels are now available and open to a much larger range of students than in the past that future prospects look brighter than they otherwise would.

Science Research Council

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she next plans to meet the chairman of the Science Research Council.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On Thursday, Sir.

Mr. Macfarlane: Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is an encouraging date? Will she take the opportunity of discussing in particular with the chairman of the Science Research Council page 2 of the annual report, which states that the declining budgets which are likely to be available between now and the 1980s could well render the SRC unable to discharge its duties adequately and as it is hoped to do? Will she therefore ensure that in the long term some of the revenue from North Sea oil is diverted to helping hard-pressed British science, because in real terms the decline since 1973 has been far too significant?

Mrs. Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about North Sea oil. But he will recognise that since the report was published there has been an increase in real terms in the science budget, and that will be sustained in future years.

Mr. Dalyell: On Thursday, will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman to give a view—perhaps prepared over several months—of the effect on the United Kingdom research pattern of the creation of a separate Scottish State?

Mrs. Williams: I had not thought of discussing that matter with the chairman, but I shall certainly consider it in the light of my hon. Friend's representations.

Unemployed Teachers

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has any further plans to provide employment opportunities for unemployed teachers and student teachers who will become qualified in the current year.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In January 1978, 465,000 teachers were in employment in England and Wales, 2,700 more than in September last. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the rate support grant settlement for 1978–79 should enable local education authorities to employ nearly 471,000 teachers next school year—that is, some 11,300 more than would be needed simply to maintain previous policies. In addition, Statutory Instrument No. 422, which was laid before Parliament on 22nd March 1918, provides for the payment of superannuation benefits to certain older teachers who are retired early, which could help to create vacancies for younger teachers.

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate the measures that have been taken by my right hon. Friend. Does she agree, however, that it is absurd that simultaneously we should have the problem of over-size classes and unemployed teachers? In view of the anticipated further redistribution of resources by the Chancellor, will she press him to take steps to make funds available for this purpose?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that over the last three years the pupil-teacher ratio has steadily improved, and our plans indicate that it will continue to improve for at least two years ahead. In addition to the figures that I have already given, there will be vacancies for an additional 2,000 teachers in further education. The numbers of unemployed teachers have fallen from 10,500 in December last to 8,800 in March, which is some improvement.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does the right hon. Lady nevertheless agree that there has been a tragic waste of young talent here, and does that not pose a deeper question? Is she satisfied that sufficient attention is being given currently in our schools to the gearing of education to the likely job opportunities in the next decade, when we all know that massive changes will have to take place in productive

methods and. Indeed, in jobs generally?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, we are very much aware of that. That is one reason why we are encouraging far closer contact between schools and industry. One example in recent weeks has been the discussions that have now started with the Engineering Industry Training Board to see whether some part of the foundation year can be taken in the last year of school, particularly for those boys and girls for whom vocational education is especially attractive.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Has my right hon. Friend had any talks with our right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development with a view to seeing whether some of the unemployed teachers could be persuaded to go overseas to teach English and other subjects in Third world countries?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, some consideration has been given to that matter. A number of teachers are going overseas, not only to teach English, but to help in the setting up of primary school systems—for example, in Fiji.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State regret that she has still not found it possible to find a way of getting young trained teachers who are on the job creation scheme into the classroom by the use of those funds? Will not the whole structure of the teaching force in future years be distorted if we miss the best of the intake over these last two years?

Mrs. Williams: On the latter point, we are making provision for additional jobs, particularly to give opportunities to the very able young people who are now trying to enter teaching. I do not believe that a figure of 11,300 more in schools and 2,000 more in further education is too shameful against an unemployment figure of 8,800.

Adult Literacy

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the current level of adult literacy.

Mr. Oakes: No, Sir, and that is why I am glad that provision for adult literacy


is becoming a firmly established part of educational provision.

Mr. Viggers: In view of the fact that our schools are passing out young adults 15 per cent. of whom are estimated to lack basic literacy, is it not time for a new initiative in the basic skills in schools?

Mr. Oakes: They could not have been doing so very well in the past judging by the scale of adult literacy provision that we have had to make over the last two or three years. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, performances in schools are being looked at. We have sent out a questionnaire to local education authorities, replies to which will come in the summer, asking particularly what kind of provision is made in the teaching of English and so on.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the resources for adult literacy and numeracy courses, and, indeed, for Russell priority courses as they affect the local education authority sector, largely go through the rate support grant, we shall have patchy provision? Does he further agree that some authorities will adopt what would not be the Government's priorities—for example, my local education authority, with its absurd and offensive course on fox hunting?

Mr. Oakes: I certainly would not want the money to go on fox hunting. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the overwhelming number of authorities, which are democratically elected, are aware of their responsibilities in this area.

Comprehensive Education

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which education authorities have not yet complied with the Education Act 1976; if any such authorities are using delaying tactics in failing to submit acceptable plans for comprehensive education: and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Of the 38 authorities required to submit proposals for all or part of their areas, only six have not yet complied. Of those, I expect proposals shortly from Barnet, where only one school is involved, Walsall, two

schools, and Shropshire, in respect of Newport. Proposals from Birmingham are delayed pending the outcome of my legal proceedings against the authority. The other two are Kirklees and Redbridge. I am aware of the possibility of delaying tactics and shall continue to use my powers under the Education Acts to ensure that the intentions of Parliament are carried out.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Party has repeated continually at the Dispatch Box that it is in favour of comprehensive education but that very few people agree that it is saying what it really believes? Does she also agree that a certain degree of firmness needs to be taken at this stage with those authorities which are clearly using delaying tactics and which were confident a short time ago that they would see a Conservative Government? Finally, does she agree that their hearts must have dropped recently because that chance is now receding somewhat?

Mrs. Williams: I find myself a little puzzled. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that the Conservative Party is the best friend of the comprehensive schools. His hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said that it will defend the remaining grammar schools and bring them back. The hon. Member for Brent, North, in the Black Paper, also said that comprehensive schools and grammar schools were not compatible one with the other. Perhaps one of these days we shall know where the Conservative Party stands.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State direct her attention to Cheshire? is she aware that her interference in that county's plans to go comprehensive by the issue of a directive in recent weeks has created complete chaos because a number of young people who had been assessed for selective education can no longer be allocated places in selective schools and there are inadequate places in the secondary sector if the county is to provide places in secondary schools which are within reasonable distance of the young pupils' homes?

Mrs. Williams: Cheshire was warned in a circular a long time ago that we should not approve the continuation of


taking up places in selective schools. The hon. Member expressed concern about whether, when a child has entered a system of education in a selective school, we shall continue to support that child until his education has finished. Yes, we have always taken the view that we shall continue to support that child until his education is finished. The hon. Member will be receiving a reply from me to that effect shortly

Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend direct her attention to Avon and the position in the Kingswood constituency? I am of the opinion that the 1976 Act is not being complied with in this connection. Will my right hon. Friend examine the situation and perhaps take some action?

Mrs. Williams: We have recently written to Avon about some of the aspects of its comprehensive organisation. We are now awaiting a reply from that authority.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Secretary of State agree that although local education authorities are bound to obey the law they are under no duty to fill in the gaps in the law which have been so trenchantly exposed by Mrs. Caroline Wedgwood Benn? Would not the Secretary of State be better employed in seeking to raise standards in all our schools instead of using all her efforts to destroy selective schools of proven academic worth?

Mrs. Williams: I am determined to improve standards. But the worst thing that could possibly happen to the schools is the continuation of the constant battle in which the Opposition engage. The best way to improve standards is to settle once and for all the question of comprehensive reorganisation which has advanced so far under Governments of both parties in this country.

Public Schools

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation to integrate the public schools into the pattern of comprehensive secondary education.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so but remains firmly committed to the long-term

aim in our manifesto of phasing out fee paying in schools.

Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a disappointing reply? Surely there is a consensus in the House for the concept of equality of educational opportunity. Should we not therefore bring forward legislative proposals, with the support of the Opposition, to integrate the public schools so that we end the system whereby 10 times more resources are concentrated on the children of the privileged than on ordinary children? Is my hon. Friend aware that the privileged children then qualify for State subsidies in the form of higher education?

Miss Jackson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is not easy to work out legislative proposals for doing what he suggests. I am sorry to tell him that there can be no prospect of the Conservative Party supporting legislation which is designed to ensure equality of opportunity in our education system. Plainly, the Conservative Party is devoted to the opposite view.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Minister make it plain whether it is still the Labour Party's policy to make the provision of private education a criminal offence? Will she be warned by the fate of her right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who enunciated that policy some years ago and has since sunk without trace?

Miss Jackson: There is no suggestion of making this a criminal offence. As for the fate of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should be happy to emulate it.

Mr. Christopher Price: Could my hon. Friend make a little progress in this area by ensuring that, where the State provides money for boarding education through the Armed Services and the Diplomatic Corps, the grants are paid at a rate which will encourage the taking up of places in the maintained sector rather than at an inflated rate which serves only to perpetuate the public schools?

Miss Jackson: We are considering this matter. We are anxious to do all that we can for the maintained sector of boarding education.

Mr. William Shelton: Does the Under-Secretary accept that if she and the Government wish to phase out fee-paying schools the simple and easy way to do it is to raise standards in the maintained sector so that parents no longer wish to pay large sums of money to have their children educated privately?

Miss Jackson: I agree that many parents are sadly deluded into thinking that one receives a better education if one pays for it. Unfortunately, an examination of the standards of many of the independent schools does not bear out that contention.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18th April 1978.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Viggers: Has the Prime Minister had time today to see the Press reports which show that 977 officers are queueing to leave the Army? Is he aware that this figure represents the officer strength of 30 battalions and that the Royal Air Force may be short of 200 pilots by 1980? Is the Prime Minister aware of the disgust within the Armed Services at the Government's attitude to pay and conditions? Is he aware that this is masked only by their sense of discipline and high sense of duty?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen these interesting reports. They seem to me to be a piece of very useful information that someone has managed to get out during the period when the Government are considering this matter of pay. I congratulate the person whose initiative it was. We shall continue to consider the matter and we shall bring the answer before the House in due course.

Mr. Urwin: I fully appreciate the extensive nature of my right hon. Friend's commitments for today, but will he try to find a little time to talk to the delegation of councillors from Sunderland who are lobbying Ministers at Westminster this week? If my right hon. Friend is not

able to do that, will he give urgent consideration to making an early visit to Wearside and the North-East to discuss these problems at greater length?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the request by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for me to receive a deputation, but it seems better that I should receive a deputation from the North-East as a whole. That is what I propose to do.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I press the Prime Minister a little further on the question which was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)? Is he aware that those figures reveal an appalling situation in response to the Pay Review Body's decision last year and that about 7,600 people have either left the Armed Forces or have applied to leave as a result of last year's pay review? Will he agree to look at this pay claim on merit, not within the 10 per cent. guideline, otherwise we shall be in danger of having some equipment without people to service it properly?

The Prime Minister: I am yet not sure what is the authority for these figures as no official announcement has been made. Clearly, someone has thought that it might help the pay claim if he produced them at this stage. I am unable to comment on whether or not they are accurate. If the Opposition know that they are accurate, perhaps they will tell me where they got the information. I should be interested to hear.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What is your answer?

The Prime Minister: The general position of the pay claim of the Armed Forces will be considered, as it is being considered, and an answer will be given to the House, against the background of all the other pay claims, the responsibility of the Government for the defence of the country and every other factor that must be taken into account before a decision is reached.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister saying that those figures are inaccurate or is he merely stalling? If they are accurate, is he prepared to take them into account in finalising the Armed Forces' pay claim?

The Prime Minister: I am saying that the figures have not been officially issued.


I am not aware whether they are right or wrong. I am making inquiries about that. I believe that they were produced extremely fortuitously. I say for the third time that I shall be interested to see whether they are right or wrong. If they are right, it shows that there are better opportunities in civilian life than there are in the Armed Forces, or that many people think so. That is a factor that must be taken into account.
I cannot be pushed into decisions on these matters without having regard to the whole of the situation that faces the country. I shall not be so pushed. I have every sympathy with the Service men.

Mr. David Steel: May I ask the Prime Minister about Press reports on an entirely different matter? Do any of his meetings with his ministerial colleagues today relate to the Government assisting the passage of the Protection of Children Bill? If he could say something about that, it would be widely welcomed in all parts of the House.

The Prime Minister: I regret very much that the progress of that Bill was impeded. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is now considering the matter to see what assistance can be given to ensure that, with the will of the House, it gets to the statute book. Where there is, as I understand it, an overwhelming view by the House, not a divided view—and I believe that this is what nearly everyone, it not everyone, wants—that the Bill should reach the statute book, I believe that the Government should do their best to help.

Mr. Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although that Bill should be given a fair wind, so also should the Bill which is being piloted through by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher)? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Leader of the House to provide time for my hon. Friend's Bill too?

The Prime Minister: Whatever sympathies I may have with these Bills, I think it is necessary to be careful about interfering with Private Members' time and saying that the Government must take responsibility for every Bill that does not manage to get through the House. I favour my hon. Friend's Bill, but there is a big division of opinion about it—

although it may involve only a small number of people—and, therefore, I do not think that the Government have the same responsibility there as they have in the case of the Protection of Children Bill

PORTHMADOG

Mr. Wigley: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Porthmadog

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Porthmadog much as I should like to do so.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Porthmadog this winter the unemployment rate has been up to 15 per cent. and has worsened as a result of the Government's regional policies, particularly the withdrawal of REP? Is he further aware that during this period unemployment in Sweden stood at 2·1 per cent., in Austria 1·7 per cent. and in Norway 0·8 per cent.? Will he, therefore, stop peddling the myth that unemployment is a uniform problem in all Western countries?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like. It so happens that the Government's measures have been of great assistance to Wales in the matter of employment, and that includes the investments made by the Welsh Development Agency. It is fair to say, especially on the basis of the results of a by-election last week, that the people of this country understand that the Labour Government are the best party capable of looking after the interests of the unemployed.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As well as making his regular visits to South Wales, will my right hon. Friend travel to North Wales and refer the people there to the splendid victory at Garscadden, when nationalism was completely rejected? Will he advise the people of North Wales that, if the problem of unemployment is to be dealt with, it will be done by maintaining the economic and political unity of the people of these islands?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have no doubt about that, and no more has the Labour Party in Wales. If Plaid Cymru insists on independence, it will be rebuffed in Wales as the SNP was at Garscadden.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The people of Wales are very anxious to say "No" in the referendum vote on the Welsh Assembly. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a danger that we shall not reach today or tomorrow the amendment to the Wales Bill dealing with the 40 per cent. requirement for the referendum which is now in the Scotland Bill?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is right that people are anxious to say "No", no doubt we shall have the assistance of himself and all other hon. Members in getting the Bill through so that the people may take full advantage of the opportunity to do so.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Bryan Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 18th April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Mr. Davies: During a busy day, will my right hon. Friend have time to consider the rather sinister news that the Opposition appear to believe that a major priority, if they should ever form an Administration, should be to devote the best brains in Whitehall to beefing up the Contingency Planning Unit in order to defeat the trade unions in any confrontation which might arise? Is it not highly significant that the only planning that the Opposition believe in is planning of this destructive kind?

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for these Press reports, and I do not know whether the Opposition's attitude in these matters is sinister or naive. I do know that they do not understand the trade union movement. However, this is an interesting development. I suggest in all seriousness to the Opposition that they might consider publishing this report in order to avoid any sinister implications being put upon it.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Prime Minister spare us a little of his expertise on these matters since it was he who became the first Prime Minister for many years to use

troops for strike breaking, as he did during the fire brigade strike? Is he aware that we regard him as a bit of an expert on using troops for strike breaking and even in getting the approval of his hon. Friends to do so?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Sunk without trace.

The Prime Minister: I should like to deny the allegation that there were cries of "Author" when the hon. Gentleman rose to his feet to deal with this report. It is fair to say, however, that on the whole the Conservative Party tends in its dealings with the trade unions to be aggressive when it should be accommodating and to be timid when it should be bold. If the Conservatives would like me to hold a seminar on this question, I should be happy to do so.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me as one who did not support him in his attempt to defeat the firemen that I should like him to turn his attention to another very important matter of saving jobs? Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture is meeting the Bakers Union representatives today with a view to saving 4,200 jobs which will be lost because of the recent agreement to close down Spillers? Is he aware that the argument about spare capacity is no longer acceptable to these men? They are being asked to work 12-hour instead of 8-hour shifts. Is my right hon. Friend aware that from 22nd April, if these jobs are not saved, there will be an overtime ban in the baking industry?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend would not want to spread the belief that the firemen were defeated. They were not. They had an increase of 10 per cent. plus a pledge that their conditions would be brought up to the proper level over a two-year period. That was not a defeat but was a fair settlement for everybody. I hope that the information my hon. Friend gave me about the bakers will be brought out in the discussions with Ministers. That is the appropriate place for it to be discussed.

Mr. Powell: Is it not absurd and derogatory to this House that, unlike any other Minister, the Prime Minister should be expected to answer without notice


questions of detailed fact? If this sort of programme is required, would it not be better on the radio?

The Prime Minister: It is true that the character of Prime Minister's Questions—I do not know about the answers—has changed over a period of years. They seem to have become much more an opportunity to make party points and to reply to them than used to be the case. I regret that development. As far as I can, I try to prepare myself for it as long as the House wishes to do it in that way, but I believe that there is a better way of spending 15 minutes.

Mr. Ashley: If my right hon. Friend manages to find time to meet the Spillers company, will he tell it that as a result of its ruthless action in sacking 8,000 men without notice—many of them in my constituency—there will be acute shortages of bread all over Britain? Will the Government now lean on this firm to reopen negotiations about the closing of those bakeries?

The Prime Minister: I shall refer what my hon. Friend said to the appropriate Ministers and they must take due note of it.

Mr. Burden: As there is a great deal of today still left, will the Prime Minister return to 10 Downing Street and ask questions about the position in the Armed Forces? If what is stated is true, it is tragic that men who have served and acquired the necessary expertise for a modern army are now leaving it. Is he aware that it will create a desperate situation in the future unless this man drain is stopped?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman need have no fears. As soon as I saw this report on the tape at 1 o'clock, I asked that inquiries should be made. I did not have the replies by the time I came here at 2.30. I shall have the reply and we shall be able to check and see. [Interruption.] I work during the morning and do not spend the morning reading the tape. I saw it at 1 o'clock.
My guess is that these figures are probably correct, because I dare say that whoever has let them out in order to influence opinion would have taken very good care to ensure that they were correct. If so, of course, they display a disturbing feature of the Armed Forces drain,

although I understand that recruitment is going well.
But all this must be taken into account against the national situation, and I shall not be pushed on this matter any more than on any other. The Armed Forces will get a square deal—no more and no less.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS, (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Eyre—to raise a point of order.

Mr. Eyre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Prime Minister's Questions last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) raised the question of the distribution of leaflets to schoolchildren urging them to become members of the National Union of School Students and, to those who replied, further giving them information as to how disruptive activities should be carried on in schools. Although my hon. Friend's question included reference to the National Front as well as the Young Socialists, the Prime Minister declined to answer on the ground that the activities of the Young Socialists did not give rise to ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister added that it would be wrong of him to use the Dispatch Box to make comments about party matters.
Left-wing activists in Birmingham, including the Young Socialists, are similarly working hard to distribute these leaflets and to encourage disruptive activity of this kind, and I wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister on 2nd May on this issue. In my submission, it is the nature of the activity rather than the agencies by which it is pursued that gives rise to ministerial responsibility, and these activities have widespread and serious consequences for society as a whole.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to give me guidance as to the manner in which ministerial responsibility, including Prime Ministerial responsibility, can arise in matters of this kind.

Mr. Speaker: First, perhaps I may say that the hon. Gentleman had sought to raise this point of order yesterday. I


have apologised privately to him for the fact that I overlooked calling him and moved on to other business.
When the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) asked the Prime Minister on Thursday last to consider the damage done by the distribution to schools of 100,000 leaflets by the Young Socialists, the Prime Minister replied that he had no official responsibility. This reply accords with the long-standing position that Ministers are not answerable to the House for party matters. There is, however, undoubted ministerial responsibility for what happens in schools. It would be open to the hon. Member to question the responsible Minister, for example, about the rules governing the reception and distribution of political leaflets in schools.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the matter has now been raised in the House by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Eyre), and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister was quite right to say that there was no ministerial responsibility will you give a ruling on the question, Mr. Speaker, because in fact the position is that the Young Socialists' leaflet pointed out only that there was a National Union of School Students affiliated to the National Union of Students? The former has two full-time organisers under the aegis of the National Union of Students. All that she Young Socialists did in their leaflet was to point out that anyone who wished to associate himself with that union could do so, and that is all, Mr. Speaker. On that basis, is it not quite wrong that hon. Members should take advantage of the House in order to raise extraneous matters that are political questions for parties and not matters for the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that the responsible Minister may be questioned in the House about what happens in schools.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker I think that you have made it clear now that, in spite of the Prime Minister's view, it will be possible for hon. Members to pit down Questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science about matters

arising in the schools. I should like to put this further point to you, Mr. Speaker Since the content of those leaflets in some respects was an incitement to public disorder—

Mr. Heffer: Rubbish!

Mr. Griffiths: —there is a question whether the police service may be involved in dealing with those problems of public order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule also that it is proper to put down Questions to the Home Secretary as a result of matters arising from the leaflets referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre)?

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made the position perfectly clear. The Secretary of State for Education and Science can be questioned about what happens in schools. If the hon. Gentleman can get any Question past the Table Office, I shall wish him the best of luck. But it is not for me to say offhand which Questions can be addressed. I have given a ruling on the important issue.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that both sides will not try to argue the matter out. I understand the strong feelings of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the question. If he has a real point of order for me to answer, I shall, of course, gladly answer it.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We really ought to have protection from statements made that the leaflet—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for the temperature to rise over this question. I have given a ruling, and I think that both sides had now better take time to digest it.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Walton will not pursue the matter. I know that he feels that an injustice is done by the charges made about the content of the leaflets. But I have not seen one of them. I cannot comment on it. I have only said that hon.


Members may ask Questions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be that Opposition Members regard the matter as a bore, but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made the statement that the leaflet was an incitement to public disorder. As you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, you have not seen the leaflet. In my view, 99·9 per cent. of Members of this House have not seen the leaflet. I have seen it.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall be requiring leaflets here if we go on with this. The hon. Gentleman is making his point. He is making it fairly enough, and I hope that he will now come to a conclusion.

Mr. Heffer: The point that I am making is that hon. Members are apparently allowed to rise in the House to say that certain statements are in fact incitements to public disorder, which is a grave charge. Therefore, if it is a grave charge, surely hon. Members who have actually read the leaflet have a right to say that it is not causing or likely to cause public disorder. Whatever defects there were in the leaflet it will not in fact do that. Unless the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds can produce the leaflet and let every hon. Member see it, I ask him to withdraw that statement. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on Rhodesia.
The United States Secretary of State and I met the leaders of the Patriotic Front in Dar-es-Salaam on 14th and 15th April. We also met President Nyerere. On 16th April we had talks in Pretoria on Namibia and Rhodesia with the South African Foreign Minister and on 17th April we met the signatories of the Salisbury agreement.
The aim of all these meetings was to prepare the ground for round-table talks to bring about a negotiated ceasefire and an internationally acceptable settlement.
I do not wish to hide from the House that there are still major differences between the parties, both of whom think they are winning. However, there are some signs that we could widen the existing areas of agreement in two important ways, both of them crucial, if we are to establish a neutral Administration for the transitional period, capable of holding fair and free elections.
First, the Patriotic Front is now closer to accepting a role for the United Nations in supervising a previously negotiated ceasefire and in monitoring the activities of the military and police forces. There is more understanding in Salisbury that United Nations involvement gives an assurance that sanctions would be lifted prior to independence.
Secondly, all would probably now agree to a Council with wide executive and legislative powers whose members would hold ministerial portfolios. The Patriotic Front said that, provided its other demands—some of which are unacceptable to us—were met, it could accept a Council presided over by a resident commissioner holding reserve executive powers over defence and law and order.
There was widespread recognition in all of Southern Africa that if we and the United States were to abandon the search for a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the Anglo-United States proposals there would be no alternative to a bitter and bloody conflict, with an uncertain outcome and the grave danger of it becoming internationalised and involving all the countries surrounding Rhodesia. The Patriotic Front accepted our invitation to round-table talks and the signatories of the Salisbury agreement have undertaken to give it serious consideration.

Mr. John Davies: I should like to thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which he has made so quickly after his return from Africa. I commend him on the efforts that he is clearly making, even though we think that they were belated, to achieve a reconciliation between the divergent viewpoints on Rhodesia. However, does he not think


that it is right to build on a firm foundation in seeking to achieve such a reconciliation? Does he not believe that a firmer foundation is to be found in the Salisbury agreement than in the Anglo-American proposals? The truth is that the Salisbury agreement has developed in a quite interesting way, in for instance the granting of amnesty to guerrillas in appropriate cases, the release of detainees, the appointment of both black and white Ministers and the work of the Executive Council.
Is it not perhaps unreasonable to imagine that those who have achieved what, as recently as a year ago, seemed an absolutely unhoped-for understanding between black and white alike should now conceive in any way compromising their agreement in favour of discussions when one of the parties to the discussions was reported yesterday as saying that his sole objective was to achieve a one-party Marxist State in Rhodesia? Does he not think that the only way forward to reconciliation lies in the agreement reached in Salisbury and perhaps in its evolution—but not its evolution in favour of those who still see their one way forward as fighting their way through to domination of that country?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman press upon the Leader of the House the need to hold a debate upon this matter? We have long asked for such a debate. We arranged, on something of an expediency basis, to have one immediately before the Easter Recess, but the time seems appropriate now to hold a proper debate on this matter as it reaches this important stage.

Dr. Owen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I arrived back only this morning, but I think the House treats this matter with great seriousness—rightly so—and deserves to be kept as fully informed as possible.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about one course being the only way forward, the problem is that both parties to the dispute believe that they have the recipe and the only way forward. Therefore, it is the job of the mediator, of the United States Secretary of State and myself, to try to search for an alternative route which can bring about a major

compromise affecting all sides. By trying to stick to principles we are better able to do that.
There has been substantial progress. It was nearly a year ago that I first visited Rhodesia and discussed with Mr. Smith some of the steps which needed to be taken. Looking back now, one sees that there has been tremendous progress. At that time, the principle of one-man, one-vote was rejected. At that time, independence in 1978 was not able to be confirmed. There are now considerable areas of agreement.
Unfortunately, the main area of disagreement is the continued non-inclusion of all the nationalist leaders and the inability to negotiate a ceasefire. It is to the attempt to achieve a ceasefire that we must now bend all our efforts. It may not be possible to do so, but I hope that we shall be able to have a negotiated ceasefire.
As for the question of a debate, the Leader of the House is here and will have heard the request. We had a debate a few weeks ago on the right hon. Gentleman's instigation, but I am always ready to discuss the issues.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have met the leaders both of the Patriotic Front and of the Salisbury internal settlement have urged on each in turn the necessity for a genuine attempt to bring both sides together? Is he aware that if he were to give unqualified support, as the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has suggested, to one side to the exclusion of the other, it would completely defeat any prospect of getting both sides together? [An HON. MEMBER: "IS the right hon. Gentleman on the Marxist side or the other side?"] I am on the side of peace, and we shall get peace only through both sides coming together.
How long does the Foreign Secretary expect it will take before he receives a reply from Salisbury about their readiness or otherwise to attend and how soon does he expect to convene a conference?

Dr. Owen: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's constant efforts to use his influence with leaders of both sides to get them to negotiations. I believe that that is the course favoured by every


hon. Member who wants to end this distressing chapter. As for the question of when a meeting could take place, Secretary Vance and I were prepared to go towards the end of April. It is unlikely that we shall get a response in time for that, and I think that we shall have to search for a time some time in May. The problem is to have it as early as possible before we actually have open conflict and the waging of war between the black nationalist leaders but also at a time when people are more ready to compromise than they are currently.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his untiring efforts to seek a solution to this difficult problem. Was the possibility of participating in free elections under United Nations supervision put to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe and the other parties? If so, what was their reaction?

Dr. Owen: All sides have agreed to have fair and free elections. It is a question of trying to get agreement on the administration for the transitional period which each side will think fair to its case. I believe that a United Nations presence is one of the ways of having a neutral Administration. That is closer to acceptance by the Patriotic Front now than it has been before, but I think that some of the hostility to the United Nations, which was understandable at one time, particularly after the refusal to hear Bishop Muzorewa in Salisbury, has lessened as they have realised the need to get international acceptance.

Mr. Maudling: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's great difficulties and the great efforts that he is making to deal with this problem. May I put this one point to him? There has been an internal agreement, which we understand is to be subject to free and fair elections. Should the free and fair elections confirm the agreement will the British Government defend it come hell or high water?

Dr. Owen: The short answer to that question is "Yes". If there are free and fair elections and this House is satisfied that the fifth principle, being acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, is met and that there have been a transfer of power, an independence constitution and a new Government, I believe that this House would have to form that difficult judgment and remain true to the six

principles which we have held to through thick and thin.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Can my right hon. Friend confirm reports from Rhodesia that the broadcast he did with the Rhodesian Broadcasting Company has been censored? If he can confirm such reports, what conclusions does he draw as to the opinions of Mr. Smith about the viability of the internal settlement?

Dr. Owen: I have seen these reports in the South African newspapers. Secretary of State Vance and I did a television broadcast in the late afternoon in Rhodesia. I was given to understand that it was likely to go out that night. I certainly hope that it does go out. When I last visited Rhodesia in September, I was not allowed to go on Rhodesian television, but I had been allowed to do so in April.
The climate in which one will hold free and fair elections must be one with out any form of censorship whatever. The sooner that is abolished and the sooner the television network is made available to all people in Rhodesia, the better.

Mr. Amery: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has to work closely with his American colleagues, but will he explain to Mr. Vance what Burke said long ago, that nothing is more futile than to be tied to the carcase of a dead policy? Will he recognise that the Anglo-American settlement is not acceptable to the Patriotic Front or to Salisbury? Will he also understand that most of us in the House believe that if he is not prepared to stop trying to undermine the internal settlement, that can only be interpreted as a determination at any price to avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union in defence of democracy and majority rule in Southern Africa?

Dr. Owen: The quickest way of achieving the carcase of a dead policy would be for the United States and ourselves to abandon any attempts at a negotiated settlement. There is no one else who proffers the prospect of a negotiated settlement and a ceasefire. There are many people with guns, people who are ready to provide more guns, who would seize the opportunity to have a conflict that could involve many African countries and much loss of life in Africa. So I reject the charge that the American Secretary


of State is doing anything other than, as I am, negotiating a peaceful ceasefire, and we shall do so. It is not our job to undermine anything. It is our job to bring people together.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can there be a peaceful settlement without involving the Patriotic Front in the ultimate agreement? If its views are regarded as unreasonable, has my right hon. Friend seen the very balanced criticism of the internal settlement by the Catholic Institute, which indicates the serious dangers of leaving the Patriotic Front out of the settlement?

Dr. Owen: I think that there is a growing recognition in this country that there are problems with the internal settlement, that it is inadequate in quite a number of respects, and that it is right for us not to have endorsed it. Anyone who watched Panorama last night could see quite clearly that there are many conscientious black people who support what they call their boys and who will continue to support the liberation fighters. What we must try to do is to understand the motivation of the people on both sides who hold different views, and try to bring them together.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary think that he may be suffering from a dangerous delusion when he says that there is a danger of this conflict becoming internationalised, in the sense that it already is internationalised, with a massive build-up of Soviet-Cuban troops and with a high-ranking Russian general in charge of the Soviet-Cuban base in Mozambique? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many tanks and MiG aircraft there are now in countries neighbouring Rhodesia, and whether it is true that guerrillas seeking to return peacefully without their arms from Zambia are being arrested and imprisoned to stop them so doing?

Dr. Owen: As the House knows, I have never hidden from the country the fact that there are Cuban involvements in some of the countries around Rhodesia. I made my views about this quite clear in the Mansion House only very recently. But I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the way to stop that build-up and to prevent what he and others fear is certainly not to abandon the prospect of a negotiated settlement, and certainly

not to choose sides and seem arrayed only on one side, for to do so would mean that we should be condemned and criticised not only by people inside Rhodesia and some outside Rhodesia—all Rhodesians—but also by many African countries.

Mr. Faulds: Pursuant to his earlier reply, how will my right hon. Friend be able to defend, or the House accept, the outcome of any elections in Southern Rhodesia in which not all the political parties have been able to campaign or to put up candidates?

Dr. Owen: It will be difficult. That judgment will be extremely difficult to make. But I have always believed that if we give a veto to any side in this difficult and tortuous dispute we shall never bring about peace. We must go on seeking to get a neutral Administration which really can hold fair and free elections without armed conflict continuing.
It is very difficult to have a fair test of opinion on acceptability of a settlement while there is continued armed conflict. But to say that it is impossible ever to hold a fair test of opinion in those conditions would simply be to give a veto to people who wish to continue fighting. I do not believe that most of the people in the Patriotic Front wish such a thing. They want a fair and honourable settlement and they are prepared to fight their views on the elections.

Mr. Carlisle: I fully recognise the desirability of achieving Mr. Nkomo's involvement in any Rhodesian settlement, if that be at all possible, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the talks he has in mind have any chance of success they must be on the basis of building on what has been achieved through the internal settlement rather than going back to the original Anglo-United States proposals?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman now accept, having been there recently, the real need for a senior diplomatic presence in Salisbury so that the Government can be advised on a day-to-day basis on what appears to be a rapidly changing situation?

Dr. Owen: There are many elements common to both sides which one can build on. Many of those elements are


incorporated within the internal arrangements, so it is possible to do that without also excluding the other side. I think that that is the important thing to try to do.
As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I offered in the context of working towards round-table talks to put in a more senior diplomat, and I believe that they are considering the situation.

Miss Joan Lestor: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if Conservative Members continue to refer to Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo as if they are some sort of lepers because they may or may not be Marxists, those hon. Members will make it absolutely impossible for them to join any negotiating team? Would it not be a good thing to remind Conservative Members that 40 years ago Conservative Members and, indeed, all Members welcomed the intervention and support of the Soviet Union in what they considered to be a fight against Fascism? It seems very odd to some of us that at times they will hold up the very thing that they used to support in order to condemn people who see themselves in precisely the same situation as that in which Britain saw herself from 1939 to 1945.

Dr. Owen: I am convinced that all the nationalist leaders are prepared to take their chance on a test in an election. There is no doubt that there are different views and different ideologies as between the differing black nationalist leaders, but one of the essences of democracy is that one is able to put different ideological issues to the people and let them decide. That is the best way of resolving the ever-present conflict of views between the black nationalist leaders. It is the absence of a united view that has harmed and in my view put back the achievement of an independent Zimbabwe over the years.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In an earlier reply, the Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the Patriotic Front had been excluded from any elections which were likely to take place in that country. Would he, for the record, care to register that that is not the case, and that the Patriotic Front is excluded from elections, if it is, by its own choice?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, who has a fair record of

looking at these things, would agree with that when he looks at the circumstances. It is true that the Patriotic Front has been given an offer to come in on the terms of the internal agreement. It sees that as exclusion. Perhaps that would be a better way to describe it. I must say that I do not think that it has been given what I described in this House some time ago as an opportunity to come back to the country to fight free and fair elections with honour and dignity. I believe, therefore, that the way to bring back the Patriotic Front is on the basis of a negotiated settlement, with participation in the negotiations.

Mr. Hooley: What is the prospect of getting rid of Smith?

Dr. Owen: At the moment, not very high. I think that he accepts that at the election he obviously will lose power. As to whether he wishes to stand in an election, and have his chance to be elected, if we are true and fair democrats we must accept that that can happen. I have no doubt that if, during the transitional period, he were to cease to be Premier, as he is still called—although he is part of a four-man Council—and to leave public life, it would certainly lessen much of the suspicion and hostility which exists in Africa.

Mr. Emery: Will the Foreign Secretary recall the answer that he gave when he said that the Patriotic Front wanted a full and fair settlement? Does he equate that with the statement from one of the leaders of the Patriotic Front that its objective is the setting up of a one-party Marxist State? Will the Foreign Secretary not realise that that sort of statement is just as damaging as the claim that the only way to obtain a settlement is by Smith going? There must be a proper balance, but from the statements of the Secretary of State it would appear to many people that it is in favour of the Patriotic Front.

Dr. Owen: Mr. Mugabe did not make that statement to me at the conference table. Had he done so, I would have told him my views. He said it outside the conference, and not in my presence. But I think that it is perfectly possible for anyone to fight an election in this country holding the view that there should be a


one-party State. If we believe in democracy, we have to be prepared to allow people with different ideologies and different views to fight elections. I make no secret of it. Of course, I do not hold those views myself.
But I do not believe that we should take too much notice of issues of this sort. Mr. Mugabe is a Left-wing Socialist and subscribes to some Marxist views. He has said openly, I believe, that he would prefer a one-party State. But even in that statement he said, I believe, that he would strive to convince others through fair democracy. It is not part of my job to defend Mr. Mugabe, nor do I intend to do it, but I intend to refute a charge that it is not possible to hold fair and free elections with people of different ideologies taking part.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Salisbury agreement occurred about five years ago, it might have had some chance of success, with the prospect of peace in the future? But, however much one wants to solve this problem, is it not closing our eyes to reality to ignore the fact that the Salisbury agreement came about because of the pressure applied by the freedom fighters?
Is it not closing our eyes to reality to think that peace can be brought about on the basis of the Salisbury agreement alone? Is it not absolutely vital to make sure that the freedom fighters at least have a say in the agreement that is brought about? It would be easy to throw the burden over and think that we had solved the issue, but surely the fighting will continue unless the freedom fighters are at least involved in the agreement.

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should attempt to do everything we can to involve the freedom fighters. If we look at the history of this country over many years in facing difficulties of this sort, usually we find that we did not take sufficient account of the aspirations of freedom fighters. It was not that we leaned over backwards to meet the freedom fighters. Some of the allegations which have been made in the present context have been made against successive Foreign Secretaries in the past. It is the task of Foreign Secretaries to

seek peace and to talk to everyone but also to uphold principles. I shall uphold the six principles in this House and the principles underlying the Anglo-American proposals.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we get to the Wales Bill, which is governed by a timetable motion, we have a Ten-Minute Bill. I shall therefore take questions on the Rhodesia statement for another five minutes until 4.10 p.m.

Mr. Rhodes James: Will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the discussions concerning the future role of the United Nations? Is he aware that some of us are very doubtful about the capability of the United Nations to undertake yet another peace-keeping operation in the present circumstances?

Dr. Owen: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. One would be unrealistic to think that the United Nations' facilities would not be very considerably stretched, with a new demand in the Lebanon, a possible demand in Namibia, and a possible demand in Rhodesia. The one hopeful sign is that major countries are now showing a greater readiness to play a part in United Nations peace-keeping operations. France has contributed forces in the Lebanon. Countries such as Iran are contributing in the Lebanon. I think that there is greater hope that some of the bigger nations which have previously not participated in United Nations peacekeeping will do so, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these demands will present a great challenge to the United Nations.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that statements made in this House by Opposition Members—particularly bearing in mind that some of them previously expressed sympathy with the illegal Smith regime—can only make a peaceful agreement far more difficult? Will he, therefore, expressly state—especially in view of his reply to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—that in no circumstances will the Government be prepared to come to terms with the so-called internal settlement and approve it, whether or not there is some form of election introduced to give it sanctity, or anything of that sort? Will my right hon. Friend state that he


will stand absolutely firm on the position which he has expressed here in the past?

Dr. Owen: I will stand firm on the principle of fair and free elections. The test that I would put would be one that I hope this House would put—that it must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I think that my hon. Friend's anxieties about the manner in which that question might be put are shared by everybody in the House, but I think that we would deal with this as we have dealt with it before. There were many people in Africa who thought that this House would not accept the recommendation of the Pearce Commission if it was against the views of the then British Government. The then Government, to give them full credit, honoured their obligations to the six principles, and I will do no less.

Mr. Biffen: Since the Foreign Secretary's negotiating role must turn on the assessment, at least in part, that he has made of Mr. Mugabe, will he tell the House whether he thinks that Mr. Mugabe is irrevocably committed to the concept of a one-party Marxist State and its attainment by means of an armed struggle, or does he think that Mr. Mugabe's statements on these points are merely related to a negotiating position?

Dr. Owen: These are things for Mr. Mugabe himself to say. But if the hon. Gentleman will look at the statement, as I have done, he will see that it can be read as being within democratic politics—in other words, that this is Mr. Mugabe's view which he would put to the people, and that if he did not reach agreement, he would continue to search for it. Many people who have expressed both Marxist views and support for one-party States have operated within a democratic

framework. I think that we should not necessarily condemn Mr. Mugabe merely because of one, in my view, extremely ill-advised remark.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not the first time that Mr. Mugabe has said it.

Mr. Urwin: Why do you not shut up?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Theoretically, a remark such as that is addressed to me, and no one could have been quieter.

Mr. Dunlop: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the visit not so long ago of Mr. Mugabe to the cities of Dublin and Belfast, where he met leaders of the Provisional IRA? Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that there was a reciprocal visit from the IRA to meet Mr. Mugabe and his companions in Mozambique? Could it be that the purpose of their meeting was to perfect the techniques of murder and destruction which these arch-terrorists have perpetrated in Southern Africa and Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these are suitable people to bring about a democratic solution in Rhodesia?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman knows that I deplore violence wherever it is. He knows perfectly well that each and every one must form his views in a democratic election about the candidates. It is the electorate who will decide this. I have little doubt that anyone who fights an election in Rhodesia will have little support for a claim for a one-party State, either from black or white Rhodesians.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry for all those hon. Members who are still standing, but we must move on. Ten-Minute Bill. Mr. Michael Neubert.

SHOPS (AMENDMENT)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the organisation on weekdays of promotional evenings on retail premises.
The Shops Act 1950, passed into law nearly 30 years ago, was itself a consolidating Act. The statutes which it superseded dated back to the period 1912 to 1938. Although the passage of time and changing circumstances would indicate the need for review and reform, there has been no amending legislation other than the Shops (Early Closing Days) Act 1965 which gave shopkeepers a right to fix their own closing day.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledged in an Adjournment debate on 28th April last year, successive Governments have treated amendment of the Shops Act as best left to Private Members' legislation because of its controversial nature. In that spirit, my Bill would amend the Act in a small particular. I hope that it will be both uncontroversial and unexceptionable since it seeks to regularise a well-established practice.
In recent years the practice has grown up of after-hours presentations of new products by retailers dealing in the more expensive kind of equipment, whose customers need time and considerable technical advice in order to make the right decision. The most familiar examples of this are motor cars and stereophonic sound systems.
Working men and women, particularly husbands and wives together, welcome the opportunity of an extended demonstration of new models after normal trading hours and in greater comfort and relaxation than shopping facilities usually allow. No purchases take place at the time and nor are orders placed, but it is understood by all that the purpose of these functions is to promote the eventual sale of the product. To this end representatives of the manufacturers are also often in attendance.
Under the Act, the organisation of such promotional evenings is permitted provided they do not take place on the actual shop premises. This is not very practicable, especially with regard to cars. Dealers would naturally prefer to demonstrate

new models in their own showrooms. To do otherwise would be to add to the costs which would eventually be passed on to the consumer in higher prices, as well as being much less convenient for all concerned.
Unfortunately, although many local authorities regard it as within their discretion to approve the holding of promotions on retail premises after hours, others observe the strict letter of the law and the Lord Chief Justice has upheld the view that, even though no transactions take place, such events must be interpreted as "the serving of customers" under the terms of the Act. As a result, a serious and inhibiting anomaly has developed.
For example, a random survey taken in October 1976 showed after-hours promotions on business premises to have been held at about that time in places as far apart as Aberdeen and Warrington, Carlisle and Winchester, Preston and Luton, Chislehurst and Hendon—the last two in London. Yet the London Borough of Havering—the starting point of my own interest in this matter—strictly refuses approval for these functions. In 1973 it successfully took a case to the High Court in defence of its interpretation. In the circumstances this may appear to be an excess of rectitude on the council's part. It reasonably maintains that if it did not carry out the duty conferred on it by Section 71(1)—
to enforce within their district the provisions of this Act,"—
it would be open to an order of mandamus in the High Court.
These differing interpretations of the scope of their discretion by different local authorities lead to inequity and inequality of opportunity. As an illustration, one company in my constituency—which is a major Vauxhall dealer in East London—is able to hold after-hours promotions in its showrooms in other parts of the area but not in Romford. Naturally, it finds this difficult to understand and resents the effective discrimination.
My Bill would, therefore, regularise the position by allowing local authorities the discretion to approve the holding of a limited number of specific promotional functions on individual retail premises, after hours, on weekday evenings only. This small amendment to confirm existing


practice would not conflict with the principal purposes of the Act in respect of closing hours which were to safeguard employees from exploitation and to protect traders from unfair competition, since such events would be infrequent, subject to approval by the local authority and the opportunity open to all traders on application. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: I wish to oppose this Bill. At the outset I must say that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) has introduced what appears to be a simple piece of amending legislation aimed at dealing with what he calls an "anomaly" arising out of the 1950 Act. The Bill may sound simple in its presentation, but it is full of danger and is highly complicated in its practicability with regard to its application.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not included Sunday trading where much of this kind of presentation and demonstration work takes place. At present, the Sunday trading situation is probably the worst aspect.
We have all seen on television, and in other media, advertisements about discount buying, promotional drives and so on, on Sundays. We have seen advertisements stating, "Bring the family for a day out" and that kind of thing. Some of us have often thought that some of these advertisements must come perilously close to advertising illegal activities.
The hon. Gentleman said that some local authorities turn a blind eye to the kind of promotion which he wishes to introduce—where one walks around, completes an order form and finalises the deal on a Monday, or, say, pays a few hundred pounds for a bag of carrots or whatever system is devised in this promotional situation. He also said that other local authorities observe the strict letter of the law.
The answer which the hon. Gentleman really seeks to his so-called "anomaly" is that all local authorities should turn a blind eye to this kind of promotion. But the real answer is that all local authorities should observe the strict letter of the law and the Act as it now stands. I think that is the answer to the

dilemma which the hon. Gentleman has come across.
As we all know, the basic principle of shops legislation has been based on the uniformity of its application. This equality under the law is of paramount importance, as is every other aspect of the law. Obviously, we hear a great deal of talk in the world of trade about fair competition, whatever that means. Yet many in competition in the commercial world seek advantages over their competitors—some fair and some unfair. It is wrong that an advantage should be given in the legislation of this House to some traders over others. In my opinion that is what this Bill seeks to do.
It would be wrong to legislate for the demonstration of certain goods outside permitted shopping hours but not to do the same for other goods in other circumstances. Who decides which goods come into the justifiable category? How does one limit and control by legislation the situation or the number of applications, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech? What about the cost of checking and enforcement by local authorities? It is not possible to bring in legislation of this kind. If introduced, it would give rise to pressure from the remaining traders for similar privileged exemptions from the present law.
The hon. Member said that men and women welcomed the opportunity for extended demonstrations of goods after normal trading hours. But where does the list end? In carpet and drapery shops there would be a call for demonstrations of new textiles and new designs. In do-it-yourself shops there would be a call for demonstrations of new tools and devices. Building merchants would want to demonstrate new materials and new brick-laying techniques. There would be a demand for demonstrations of furniture design and house planning in furniture shops. Hardware shops would want to demonstrate new mowing machines and compartmentalised greenhouses. Chemists' shops would want to demonstrate new cameras and film equipment. Food shops would want to demonstarte the cooking of new dishes or foods to eat and grow slim or how to get the best out of a piece of mutton. It goes on now in grocery and food shops.
There is not much left when one considers the list that could come out if this


kind of amendment to the law were made. What is more, supermarkets and hypermarkets would not want promotional functions affecting three-quarters of their stores and not the remainder. I am sure that chaos would result.
Are these promotional demonstrations to go on until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m.? I think that that is a valid question, bearing in mind that some shops now close at 9 p.m. on the so-called late night. If so, they will say "What nonsense. We can promote. We can demonstrate. We can take an order on these occasions. But we cannot take the money and complete the sale." Of course it will be nonsense and, before long, they will take the money. The result will be that shopping hours in the retail trades will go back to what they were 50 years ago.
Some people may ask "Why not?" We hear a great deal of talk in this House and elsewhere about prices. People have a limited amount of money to spend. If shops are allowed to stay open for eight, 10 or 12 hours a day, the amount of money available for spending is not increased. But if the shopping hours are increased, operational costs are increased, and those costs are recouped by increases in prices. The shopping public pay for those increased operational costs, and the Chopping public would have to pay for these demonstrations if they were allowed.
All over the country we suffer already from artificially high prices because of competitive advertising, over-elaborate packaging and presentation—sometimes the packaging costs more than the com

modity which is contained in it—and so-called discount buying on manufacturers' recommended or suggested retail prices leaves a lot to be desired However, I shall not dwell on that.

My final argument is one which I make with a measure of self-interest, which I declare. In the main, the hours worked by shop workers are tied to shop opening hours. Employers in the retail trades do not agree with piecemeal legislation of this kind. But USDAW, in which I have an interest, and the employers have always tried to strike a balance between the real needs of the general public and the rights of shop workers to reasonable working schedules USDAW members put up with antisocial hours to serve the public in an industry which is efficient and prosperous but which carries a low pay label. Workers in the industry have never had fair recognition of their contribution to the British economy, nor the standing and rewards which their services deserve What is more, 70 per cent. of the labour force is female, with other domestic responsibilities. If this Bill were passed it would make the working conditions of all shop workers more intolerable. For this and the many other reasons which I have given, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committee at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 148.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 61

POWER TO MAKE NEW PROVISION AS TO CERTAIN BODIES

Amendment No. 293 proposed [5th April], in page 24, leave out lines 8 to 10.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As I was saying, Sir Myer, before we were interrupted by the spluttering of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's damp squib of a Budget, I believe that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was wrong when he said that Ministers who are unfortunate enough to have to deal with devolution will see their political careers blasted. That is quite wrong as regards the Minister of State, who I am sure every hon. Member on both sides of the Committee will agree has increased his already high reputation by the manner in which he has handled the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was prompt to intervene only recently to give the Committee an assurance, which some of us would like to see strengthened. However, his promptitude in intervening on that occasion reflects the way in which he has handled the Bill throughout.
I agree strongly with all the points of order that have been made from both sides of the Chamber about the importance of debating and voting on the 40 per cent. amendment. I wanted to pay a compliment to the Minister of State because at the end of my brief remarks I shall say some extremely unpleasant things about not him but his Department.
In a dazzling intervention at the beginning of the debate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and


Whitby (Mr. Brittan) pointed out that the amendment exposes the process whereby this seemingly harmless subsection could be used to extend the competence of the Assembly not merely within Wales but well beyond the Welsh border.
If the Minister of State supposes that the Assembly would not seek to extend its competence beyond the borders of Wales, I suggest that he cannot have studied with his usual diligence the debates that took place some time ago on the setting up of, for example, the Welsh National Water Development Authority.
In Part I of Schedule 7 many of the matters there contained relate to bodies concerned with the supply of water, inland waterways and forestry. These are matters that in a proper defence of Welsh interests could be held to require an active concern with what goes on beyond the borders of Wales. Rivers and forests march majestically over borders. If that is so, the Welsh Assembly, which like all elected Assemblies will be for ever seeking to extend its powers, will be bound to press the Minister to use the power given to him by the subsection. It will be bound to try to force the Minister to do what he has a power to do, and to judge by the way in which he responded by a shake of his head when I asked him to confirm that the word "modify" could not be interpreted to mean "extend", it seems clear that the Assembly, like me, will not expect any stout resistance from him or from the Secretary of State when it puts forward its demand that its competence should be extended.
In short, the subsection is making the worst of a bad job. If there has to be a subordinate Assembly to which certain powers hitherto exercised by the United Kingdom Parliament are to be devolved, it is vital that the demarcation of functions be clearly, definitively and once and for all settled. If that is not done, we shall have a recipe for perpetual conflict. The subsection is a major ingredient in that poisonous recipe.
The accident of the guillotine has pushed the amendment to the top of the queue. The result is that it is being debated. Some may say that it is being debated at greater length than its importance deserves, although I would disagree with that contention.
It has emerged in the course of brief debate that this harmless little subsection is intensely dangerous in its consequences. How many more such dangerous consequences and subsections are there lurking in seemingly harmless portions of the Bill that we shall never debate? The danger is immensely increased because we are trying to operate without parliamentary papers. You, Sir Meyer, were not even aware that I was due to open the debate today, because you were not in possession of a copy of Hansard. I understand that no hon. Member is in possession of a copy of Hansard.

Mr. John Smith: I have one.

Sir A. Meyer: Has it come out today? It was not available yesterday. I managed to duplicate a copy of Hansard that was in the Library. Our task is made much more difficult because without parliamentary papers we cannot give proper consideration to the random samples of the Bill that we are debating, let alone those that we are not.
I must confess that the suspicion is growing that the Lord President, who is responsible both for getting the Bill through the House and for ensuring that we have a proper supply of parliamentary papers, is not exerting his utmost zeal to ensure that we get our papers. I hope that I am wrong in supposing that the absence of parliamentary papers, which is complicating our task, has anything to do with the right hon. Gentleman.
The Government, who are pushing ahead so recklessly with Welsh and Scottish devolution, are hoping, no doubt encouraged by the result of the by-election in Glasgow, Garscadden, that they will be able to salvage some seats in Scotland, if not in Wales, and are quite ready to sacrifice the unity of the Kingdom to their own electoral prospects. They are selling our national heritage for a mess of porridge.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: The House will acquit me of being the creature or the toady of the Lord President, but I must say that the implication of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that, in order to get his way on Welsh devolution, my right hon. Friend has somehow arranged that we do not get parliamentary papers cannot be taken seriously. Let us dismiss


that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit my right hon. Friend of any such daft thoughts or deeds.
I was also a little puzzled by what the hon. Member for Flint, West said about what I had said about careers. I read this in Hansard and tumbled that it was an off-the-cuff remark to the Home Secretary whom I tried to tempt into the debate, believing seriously that he and other senior Ministers should have interested themselves and heard part of our debates. Any remark that I made was to try to tempt him to hear what we had to say rather than an aspersion on my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That should be put in context.
Time is of the essence so I shall raise just one subject—the British Waterways Board. I have received a letter from Mr. H. C. Rutherfurd, the solicitor to the Board. He says:
So far as the Board are concerned the proposals in both the Scotland and Wales Bills are precisely the same and will have the same effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) knows that the Board is no less concerned now than it was when we first met them and at subsequent meetings that we have had.
The public document of the Board says:
The Board are concerned that, should the proposals contained in the Bill affecting their Undertaking become law, the integrated system which they now control will become fragmented. The funds required for maintenance of the inland waterways and for capital investments will be derived from three sources with the probability that the principles applied in the allocation of such funds will not be consistent.
If consistency is desirable—and I am assured by technical experts that it is—how do the Government propose to achieve consistency without the expenditure of great costs in terms of the Civil Service? How is policy to be synchronised for purposes which I think go no further than giving the Assemblies something to do? The search to find them something to do has been fairly frantic. I cannot see why we should acquiesce in the fragmentation of the British Waterways Board. The Board goes on:
It will no longer be possible for the Board to allocate their scarce resources of money and manpower in the best interests of the waterways.

Those who represent, for example, those concerned with the Union Canal between Edinburgh and Glasgow or any other canal in the United Kingdom know that the Board has problems and that its major problem is the shortage of money. These matters must be taken seriously. The Board goes on:
The proposals will enable the Scottish Assembly to alter the Board's statutory duties and responsibilities. A separate organisation could be created for the Scottish waterways which, in the view of the Board, would inevitably be much more costly and dissipate staff effort. The existing career opportunities for staff would be prejudiced.
Does the same thing apply in Wales? What is to be the Welsh career structure? I am willing to be told that there is nothing to fear on this matter, but I have stated the view of the Board. The Board's document continues:
The Board have managed the inland waterways since the 1st January 1963. They remain of opinion that these can be administered intelligently and economically only as a unified system. This was acknowledged when the Water Act 1973 became law and re-affirmed in Paragraph 27 of the Green Paper about the future of the Water Industry. … They would, however, welcome the proposal for the appointment of Members to the Board representing Scottish and Welsh interests. This would enable these Bodies to keep themselves informed and to comment on the inland waterways in Scotland and Wales, without the untenable financial demarcations proposed in the Bill.
The document points out:
Paragraph 15 of the White Paper stated that the essential task on which the Government have concentrated is that of developing the devolution schemes to define those areas of activity where decisions affect primarily people living in Scotland and Wales. It would be plainly wrong (they say) to devolve to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies powers over activities which substantially affect people elsewhere or the well-being of the United Kingdom generally. The need is to achieve a balance—to reconcile unity and diversity in a stronger and better system, offering more achievement and satisfaction to the parts while improving the efficiency and stability of the whole.
It would come better from others to raise the question of the Birmingham water supplies, but this is obviously a matter which must affect anyone concerned with the economic future of the United Kingdom.
In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the Board remains convinced that the principles for devolution as stated by the Government have not been correctly


applied in deciding that inland waterways should become a devolved matter. I hope that we shall have an explanation of that decision today.
The document goes on:
The Board are not aware of any public pressure for inland waterways to be devolved—in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Those concerned seem reasonably satisfied with the way in which the Scottish waterways have been managed within the overall finances of the Board even though such finances have been restricted.
The Welsh waterway system which is much smaller is unlikely to be sustained and developed to the full if left dependent on Welsh resources alone. For example, most of those using the Llangollen Canal live in England as do most of those interested in the Montgomery Canal restoration. The Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal has more local use, but not to the extent that local resources are likely to be adequate to maintain it nor—in normal circumstances—to meet the existing need for considerable repair.
Any of us who have to deal with canals know that the cost of repair is simply enormous. The Board goes on:
At present the Board can deploy finance according to operational needs rather than geographical location.
What will happen if the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies are given responsibilities for the inland waterways? The Board's document continues:
The Board view with alarm the proposal that they will no longer be able to deal with their finance on a comprehensive basis. The artificial attribution of costs proposed in the Bill will add considerably to day-to-day work with no benefit to inland waterways and cannot be undertaken on a basis satisfactory to all. The Board note that theirs is the only nationalised industry created by the Transport Act 1962 to be affected by devolution. The British Transport Docks Board, for example, have harbours at Ayr and Troon and in South Wales which are managed locally. The functions of the British Railways Board in Scotland and Wales are not affected.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman not faced with the problem that once Assemblies are set up in Scotland and Wales, it is almost inconceivable that they will not want to control inland waterways and water authorities in their areas?

Mr. Dalyell: That is correct. This is part of the argument of those of us who are completely against separation. Whether the Government like it or not, it is in the nature of the beast that once people become Members of Assemblies,

they will claim all sorts of things, and this will be one of them. There will be hardly any Assemblyman who thinks that he ought not to claim water.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) would assent to this because if he were a Member of the Assembly, even if it were a devolved Assembly, within weeks he would be shouting for control of canals and all the rest of it. So that question is not in dispute. The Board goes on to say:
Since 1968 the Board's freight and amenity activities have become of increasing importance to Great Britain. The Government and users of the inland waterways regard the creation of uniform standards and unified management as essential. Certainly the promotion and development of Commercial Waterways for freight transport in a unified manner would be within the principles of the Government's transport policy.
The Board administer the waterways economically and carry out the statutory duties imposed upon them by the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968. They apprehend that under other arrangements the administration of the waterways will be less economic; less efficient overall; not provide an adequate career structure for professional and other staff and put navigation on the inland waterways at risk.
I have to emphasise that this is the Board's professional opinion and not the opinion of myself or any other amateur. The Board says:
No account appears to have been taken of the basic essential services provided by the Board in England for all the waterways, using suitably placed centres of specialist skills.
In the Board's opinion the inland waterways should continue to be dealt with primarily on a Great Britain basis and can only suffer if the financial and legal obligations become divided. The proposals are unjust to those using or benefiting from the waterways.
The Board recall Paragraph 20 of the White Paper, 'British Waterways: Recreation and Amenity' (Cmnd. No. 3401 1967):
'In the waterways this country possesses a priceless asset, an asset whose value will grow as the demand for leisure facilities intensifies. The Government now intend the British Waterways Board to have a new and positive role to play in the development of this potential recognised by statute for the first time. This is in effect a new charter for the waterways. But to get the most out of this charter legislation and official action will not be enough. The Government is confident that many thousands of ordinary people will welcome its plans and it looks to all those who enjoy the waterways to help in seeing that they are fully, imaginatively and adventurously used as the great amenity network they are.'
The Administration which published that White Paper obviously recognised that the


Board had a Great Britain function. However, this is not the first occasion upon which proposals have been made which could lead to disintegration of the Board's system. The Board have hitherto successfully resisted on firm grounds such proposals as being not in the public interest. They recall their observations on DOE Circular 92/71 that the professional and technical services which they provide for running the system (engineering, estates, freight, amenity, legal and accounts) are inextricably bound up one with the other. All depend on central direction. The essential and interdependent expertise is bound to be lost if control becomes fragmented. The Board provide economic use of scarce technical manpower. This cannot readily be replaced for parts of the system which may become separately organised and for which judgments will be made by those who have no responsibility for the system as a whole.
I have deployed this case at some length. It is a serious case. Late at night there was a slightly bizarre interchange—at least, it read like a bizarre interchange—between my hon. Friend and me when I asked "What shall we say to Sir Frank Price, the chairman of the Waterways Board?" The interjection in Hansard is "Hello", and the argument went on. This is altogether an earlier hour. All I say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State is that it is not sufficient—I am sure that he did not mean to say it in this way—to say "Hello" to these arguments. They have to be faced, and I am sure that he will face them.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Granby Onslow: I hope that I may intervene briefly to ask the Minister one or two questions relating to this amendment, and specifically to the use which he contemplates making of the power which would vest in him, if the Bill is passed as it stands, relating to the Welsh National Water Development Authority and to is fishery powers in particular.
I ask this because, as I understand it, the Bill provides that the Assembly may control the way in which the Severn—Trent Water Authority carries out almost the whole range of its river management functions in that part of the River Severn basin which lies in Wales. The policies so imposed, which may well be designed to secure purely local objectives, may nevertheless be in conflict with the policies applied in England under the control of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and preclude the effective management of the River

Severn basin as a whole for the benefit of all local interests and millions of consumers throughout the Midlands and further afield.
I am sure that the Minister does not need to be reminded of the importance of managing water resources as a unit in the case of a river, because this was clearly demonstrated in the drought of last summer. It is vital for each river system to be considered in its entirety, in drought conditions in particular but also at any time.
It is because the powers relating to this part of the clause and to Schedule 7 would appear to affect the ability of the river to be managed as an entity that I seek to intervene briefly on this matter. The Minister will probably accept that it would be undesirable that there should be different arrangements applying to discharge consent between Wales and England. If that were so it would be possible for discharges to be made in one area or another under different conditions and perhaps only minimal treatment, which would be bound to have a harmful effect on the quality of the water. Having just heard that the Government's consent regulations are to be lowered as a convenience in order to implement the Control of Pollution Act, Part II, I am afraid that fishery interests are not particularly confident of the interest of this Government in investing in pure water.
It is also true—I believe that the Minister will know this as well—that there could be difficulties if there were different byelaws applying to parts of the river which ran along the national boundaries, which is the case in relation to parts of the river Teme and the Severn in the Severn Trent Water Authority's area and also applies in the case of the Wye and the Dee in the Welsh National Water Development Authority's area.
Perhaps I could interpolate there that the Welsh National Development Water Authority has already shown some disposition to uproot established byelaws and to seek to introduce, in pursuit of interests of its own devising, changes in practices which have been accepted and recognised as acceptable by conservationists, anglers and all interests for a long period in regard to the Wye.
I know that the case is sub judice and that there is to be an inquiry under an inspector appointed by the Department



of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Cardiff shortly on the matter. But the auguries are not very good now because the initiative for change has come from the Welsh National Authority.
The particular point that I want to stress—I declare an interest in so doing, in that I fish in Wales, I am a riparian owner in a small way and I vote in Wales, in case the Minister is not going to take this matter too seriously—is that there is considerable concern amongst those who fish in the rivers that run through England and Wales that there should not be a split personality approach to the interests of the river as an entity for angling purposes. This is particularly important where salmon are concerned because most of the catch of salmon is now taken in England and most of the salmon spawn in Wales.
This makes it easy to see that it would be uneconomical for one authority to spend money and effort in looking after the spawning areas of a fishery unless there were some compensating benefit in the form of catches. This is inherent in the way in which salmon fisheries operate.
Some people fear that there may be a conflict between salmon interests and other interests in Wales. They believe that if there is no exclusion of this function the predominant interest will go against the salmon fishery and that this might have a serious effect on the salmon fishery of the River Severn as a whole. The Minister probably has the figures, but in case he has not, I should say that they show in recent years that the overwhelming proportion of the salmon catch is made in the English part of the River Severn. They show that the commercial methods of catching in the estuary, for instance, in 1977 brought over 2,500 fish, and that the rod catch below Shrewsbury was some 650. Above Shrewsbury it was 340 which is a welcome increase, thanks to the new fish pass there.
In the other head-waters, the Teme, the Vyrnwy, the Banwy and the Tanat, that catch tapers away, so that the overwhelming proportion of salmon are caught in the English part of the river. On the other hand, the number of redds counted in 1977 shows that there were 642 in the main part of the Severn in Wales, and

in the Rhiw, the Banwy, the Tanat and the Vyrnwy there were over 1,000 redds counted. But the number of redds counted in the English part of the river was minimal.
If there is to be any assurance that the river will be managed in the interests of preserving and, I hope, improving the historic salmon fishery which the Severn represents, it is important that it should be managed as a unit and that there should be no conflict and subordination of local interests to the overall interests of the river.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am interested in the matter being raised by the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that on the Continent of Europe there are numerous examples of different stretches of rivers which are controlled by different national authorities? That does not act in any way adversely to the fishery or other interests. If that is possible there, why is it not possible between us?

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the history of the Rhine is an advertisement for international management of a salmon fishery, he had better take further instructions on the matter. The short answer is that this is the quickest way to destruction. There is no overriding interest. Therefore, local interests are put first. The end result is disaster. That is what I fear. The hon. Gentleman serves to underline my fear in this matter by suggesting that it will be effective to split responsibility and management in this way. I hope that the Minister will not take the same kind of casual, local, chauvinistic view as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) but will give me some reassurance on this matter.

Mr. John Parker: I speak as a member of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and declare my interest. That body was set up by the Government. It includes people who use canals and waterways both commercally and for leisure purposes—anglers, boaters and so on. There are two Members of the House of Commons on that body, one from each side. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) represents the Opposition and I liaise between that body and the Government side.
We, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, are advisers to the Government, and we have advised the Government on this matter. We certainly received the evidence from the British Waterways Board to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred. On the whole, we agreed with it. We have also had strong representations from users of waterways in Wales, and all are strongly against the devolution of inland waterways in Wales. In the main, these are all part of the English waterways system.
Mention was made of Llangollen. There is also the important Montgomery Canal which many people are anxious to see opened for leisure purposes. The Prince of Wales Committee and the Variety Artistes Association have given a great deal of time and money and help, and there have been many volunteers, in trying to get the canal open. Slow progress is being made. It will be an important addition to amenities in the county of Powys as well as in England.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as practical politics or practical anything to have a Welsh Assembly and to leave internal parts of the Welsh waterways system under some other organisation? If he believes that—I am not speaking as a devolutionist—I suggest that it is absurd.

Mr. Parker: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am taking the Montgomery Canal as an example. Powys is one of the poorest local authorities in the United Kingdom. When it builds new roads, it is driven almost of necessity not to think about the possible reclamation of the Montgomery Canal. It is only by grants from central Government towards the cost of highways and so on that Powys has been able to prevent the canal from being rendered impossible of being opened by the lowering of bridges and so on. Some temporary arrangements have been made in the last few years to meet local needs. But, in the long run, that canal will be opened only if it is part of a national system.
Another canal exclusive to Wales is the Brecon and Abergavenny Canal. That is a very beautiful canal running through the Brecon Beacons. Recently there was a complete collapse of one section. Unless

money had been forthcoming from the United Kingdom Government, that section would not have been reconstructed. It is being reconstructed now. That section is essential to the operation of that canal. Money would not have been forthcoming from Cardiff, so canal users believe, for the reconstruction of the canal. If a separate organisation were set up to run the few canals in Wales, it would find difficulty in getting money from the Cardiff Assembly. The canals are all part and parcel of the English system. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian said, the career structure, expertise and so on must come from within a United Kingdom body.
I suggest that all who are interested in the waterways in Wales want them not to be devolved but to remain under the control of the United Kingdom. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that people openly say "If we must find something for the Assembly to do, let us hand the waterways over because they are not important." That is the wrong attitude. I suggest that we do not want the inland waterways of Wales devolved. We do not think that it would be practical or desirable from the point of view of English or of Welsh users or in the interests of the structure of the system as a whole.

Mr. W. Benyon: When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) opened the debate on this clause, he described it as a manhole clause. As someone who has not got his legal knowledge, I should describe it as a maze clause, because, wherever one turns, one comes up against what appears to be an impenetrable barrier of comprehension, incredibly confusing and difficult to understand.
My interest in Part I of Schedule 7 is in the Forestry Commission. To find out the full ramifications on this matter one has to go from Clause 61 to Schedule 2, to Schedule 7 and finally to Schedule 11.
I thought that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) would refer to Amendment No. 92 standing in his name. I feel that I am in order in pursuing this matter at this time because experience of sitting on these Benches during these debates on the Bill makes me realise that often the spirit is willing


but the flesh is weak when it comes to getting on with the debate. I sometimes beg leave to wonder whether we shall reach Amendment No. 92.
The Forestry Commission operates throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. It cultivates and markets its own timber and controls and particularly encourages the private sector as well.
Some of my hon. Friends have reservations about the Forestry Commission. I do not share those reservations. I think that it is a peculiarly British institution which has made a great contribution to forestry. The important thing is that it works. It is a funny combination, but it works. The essence of the underlying regulations governing the Forestry Commission is that it is a centralised body looking at one forestry estate in England, Scotland and Wales.
We lost the debate on the Scotland Bill. But the situation in Wales is different, and I suggest that the Committee can draw back from taking an irrevocable decision about the Forestry Commission. If not, the expertise and success that have been achieved will be at risk. It will be at risk because legislation is being introduced for the sake of legislation. There is no wrong to be put right; there is no injustice to be remedied. It is a desire to make what might be described as a tidy package.
It has not been possible to refer to the Minister of State's arguments on the Scotland Bill in relation to the EEC. His argument then was that we were entitled to separate forestry and agriculture because the latter had certain EEC connotations and the Minister had to remain responsible. That is not so. There are great EEC ramifications in forestry and the two situations are the same.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: Murray Hunter, a Forestry Commissioner, in a letter of 14th April states:
It would not be proper for me to comment to you on the wording of the Bill, or how the Government or the Minister concerned would interpret it. These are matters on which the Government spokesman will no doubt give the appropriate explanations to the Committee, and the advice of officials will of course have contributed to these explanations.

One of the difficulties is that the experts in forestry feel tied out of loyalty. Given our system, they are quite right not to give what might be their real views on these matters. This is one of the difficulties that arises. There does not seem to be a single Welsh Member on the Government side who is concerned with devolution and forestry.

Mr. Benyon: I accept what the hon. Member said. This is the difficulty. We do not know what advice is given by the experts on this question or on that question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
It would be wrong for me to be derogatory about a future Welsh Assembly and to imply that it would be incapable of exercising the functions that the Minister now exercises. But the Assembly could exercise these functions differently. I draw the Minister of State's attention to Sections 4 and 5 of the Forestry Act 1976. In one of those sections the Minister is involved in the whole question of advances, planting grants and subsidies of one form or another. Section 5 deals with the question of restrictive covenants under which most of the timber in the private sector is grown. It is easy to see that under those two sections alone there could be a totally different regime in Wales from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The ramifications of this are tragic. Timber is one of the commodities of which there is the greatest shortage throughout the United Kingdom. It represents our biggest import bill. If we play our part right and expand the industry over the next 25 years we shall be in a position, when the oil begins to run out, to have a viable timber industry. This can be done only if the estate is a United Kingdom estate and looked at as a whole.
I turn to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the waterways. The hon. Member talked about staff, conditions of service and careers. The same situation will occur in the forestry industry. As far as I can see from this labyrinth that we have been through, there is nothing to stop an Assembly creating completely different conditions for Wales from those which apply in the rest of the United


Kingdom. The implications for the future of the forestry and timber industry are very great indeed. I hope that before it is too late the Government will take another look at this.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have spoken frequently in our debates on devolution but this is one issue on which I speak primarily wearing a constituency or county hat. I represent a part of the country which is much affected by the provisions of the Bill.
The River Severn flows through my constituency. If it were not for the control of the river further up, we should still experience the regular flooding of part of my constituency in the Severn Gorge with which I was familiar when I first represented The Wrekin.
My constituency is in the Severn-Trent Water Authority area. Woods and forests cross the border between my county and Wales. I have an interest in seeing that there is an integrated waterways system.
I take on board all the dangers that hon. Members have mentioned in the debate. Of course there are dangers. As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said, this is a complex Bill. If one wishes to find all the provisions that relate to these six bodies, one has to examine several parts of the Bill. A wide variety of changes in the law are specified. There are also changes in who shall, hereafter, exercise executive functions. For example, one finds that if Schedule 2 is approved, it shall be the duty of the Welsh Assembly to promote a national policy for water in Wales in harmony with a national policy for water in England and to secure its effective execution by the bodies responsible.
That shall be the duty of the Assembly. But what happens if—perhaps because of no will of its own and not deliberately—the Assembly fails in that duty? Of course there is a danger. The forestry provisions are similar. In the same schedule the Forestry Commission has powers to make regulations under Part II of the Forestry Act 1967, but they cannot be made without the assent of the Assembly.
That poses the possibility that there will be radically different regulations for forestry in England and in Wales since the Forestry Commission would not be able to change the existing regulations in

Wales were the Assembly to withhold its consent.
There are also the dangers of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) mentioned in connection with waterways. What would happen under Clause 50 of the Bill if there were, in the course of a financial year when the capital programme for loans to this body by the Welsh Assembly had already been approved, a need for a substantial, emergency, additional capital expenditure? The provisions in Clause 50(1) appear to place restrictions on the ability of the Assembly to act and help the body that is affected.
There are dangers. But we have to set against them the need to make a sensible devolution package and to devolve together functions which go together. It makes little sense to say that we shall reserve, for example, all powers over water to the Minister responsible to this House. That would be separating it from all local functions. I accept that there has to be, in some sense, a national water system and a pattern of large water authorities. But we all know that the supply of water is a localised matter in many parts of the country. It would make little sense to say that we should retain ultimate responsibility and leave that matter for the Minister who is ultimately responsible to the House. It would not make much sense to say that we should retain Welsh waterways in the same manner since much of their usage is, and should be, of a local character.
It would not make much sense to say that we shall retain the River Severn because it flows for much of its length through England and has its source in Wales. I do not think that there are real dangers of the sort that were described earlier.
I recognise that those dangers exist potentially. We have a conflict of view. There are potential dangers but we must devolve as much as we can of essential local Welsh matters if we are to have a sensible package of devolution. We cannot simply pick out bits and pieces over which British national control should be retained.
When I was dealing with devolution in a ministerial capacity I never came across a body that said it wanted to be devolved. Many bodies said that they


did not want to be devolved, but it would be surprising to come across a United Kingdom national body the members of which said unanimously or even in a majority that they wanted to be devolved to Scotland and Wales, that the powers that were now exercised in subordination to a Minister should not be continued in that way but that they wanted to be responsible to two or three masters.
None of the bodies said that, but that does not support an argument against devolution. There is, therefore, this conflict of interests, and that is where I come to the amendment before the Committee. It seems to me that this debate has in a sense been stood on its head. The provision that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) seeks to delete is the essential safeguard against the potential dangers that I have described.
At present the Bill says,
In relation to a body listed in Part I of Schedule 7 to this Act, a Minister of the Crown may by order modify or exclude any provision of this Act.
Of course there must be such provisions if there is to be rapid action when Clause 50(1) impedes the emergency provision of capital expenditure, or might be held so to do. Action of that sort must be possible when something goes seriously amiss in the co-ordination of water policy in England and Wales. But the Opposition should be seeking to strengthen the provisions of this subsection, not delete them.

Mr. Dalyell: I quite understand the reluctance of anyone to give up powers. However, when my hon. Friend was a Minister of State what did he say to these bodies on two issues? First, is their career structure to be broken up between Wales, Scotland and England? Secondly, how did he reply to the question of the pooling of expertise and technical capacity? It seems that it is not just a question of a body wanting to give up its authority. There are very real technical reasons for not doing that, given the shortage of resources and that technical expertise in these matters is concentrated.

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that those questions arise in respect of the boards or bodies that we are discussing. It is possible to mount the first of my hon.

Friend's arguments in respect of the Civil Service. It is a specious and spurious argument even in that respect, however, because all along we have said that we shall keep a single United Kingdom Civil Service. His argument certainly does not apply to the British Waterways Board or the Forestry Commission. They will keep a united expertise and a single structure. Doubtless, members of the Forestry Commission will be examining specifically the problems of forests in Wales. I have no doubt that they do that at the moment, and I can see no significant difference in that respect.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Does the hon. Member not recall that in our debate on 5th April reported at column 590, I made clear that I accept that the purpose is to enable, the Government to restrict the powers of the Welsh Assembly, but I said that the language of the Bill enabled those powers also to be increased. It was to that that I objected. I set out the procedure by which that could happen. Even if the Government do not wish it, they may find, once the Assembly is set up, that they are under considerable pressure to use the power that the Bill gives them.

Mr. Fowler: We are back to an old familiar point. In any event I do not accept that "modify" means "extend" or, at least, "extend significantly". As it stands the Bill says that a Minister may by order modify or exclude any of the provisions of the Act. The Opposition repeatedly argue that if the Welsh Assembly asks the Minister so to do the Minister will inevitably and inexorably do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. If the Opposition are not arguing that, what are they arguing? There seems to be no validity in the argument that to confer power upon the Minister is ipso facto to confer upon the Assembly the power to extend its own powers.

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman is serious in his question the answer can be given very simply. One of two things will happen. Either the pressure will be very great and the Minister will acquiesce, in which case there will be an extension of non-statutory powers in a most undesirable piecemeal way. Alternatively, the Minister will resist, in which case there will be precisely the kind of political


clash and conflict between Westminster and Whitehall, on the one hand, and Cardiff and Whitehall, on the other, which those of us who oppose the Bill seek to avoid.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Fowler: It is not unknown for local authorities to seek an extension to their powers, whether collectively or individually, I have yet to hear the argument that because they can do that and because the House may on the recommendation of a Minister on occasions agree to accede to such a request, we should not have local authorities. Yet that would be the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member says this grandly and largely, but can he nominate an authority which can arrogate powers to itself in this way? Is it not more customary for them to seek to promote a private Act?

Mr. Fowler: That is precisely my point. The hon. Gentleman asks whether I can name a body which can arrogate powers to itself in this way. But by the provisions of this Bill the Welsh Assembly could not arrogate powers to itself. I think that the nub of his argument is the point we have come back to so frequently in our debates. The Opposition object in principle to devolution. They are not objecting only to the devolution of particular powers. They do not like the notion that we can create an Assembly in Wales which can exercise a range of powers which at the moment is exercised by Ministers responsible to this House. They will not recognise that in a complex Bill of this sort it is necessary to provide safeguards such as this clause contains, and they will not accept that those safeguards are of the essence of devolution if devolution is to work. It is their fundamental hostility to the Bill which is at issue, not the provisions of this clause.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), I have a constituency which is supplied with water by the Severn-Trent Water Authority. I therefore have the same interest as the hon. Member, but I come to totally different conclusions from him. Perhaps this is for the reason that he mentioned, that I start from the premise of being highly suspicious

about devolution and I feel that all sorts of problems and anomalies are unnecessarily created by the Bill. I do not dismiss the problem that he rightly raised—the issue of national objectives being left to the Assembly and the problems of resolving the difficulties that arise, problems that the hon. Gentleman seemed to dismiss as non-problems or as problems that were worth suffering because of the wider objectives of the Bill. I totally disagree with the hon. Member.
The main problem in my constituency and in the whole of the West Midlands arises in a sense because 50 per cent. of the water supplied throughout the region and 90 per cent. of Birmingham's water will under the Bill be within the control of an authority upon which the bodies that I deal with are almost totally unrepresented. The consumer in my part of the country is to be virtually powerless in dealing with the provision of water.
The Bill, recognising this to some extent, says what it will do by nods and winks; and, in the context of what we are talking about, this is one of the nods and winks. The Minister can intervene on certain occasions—and there is very little definition in the Bill as to when he can intervene—and matters can be referred to him; if there are conflicts he will step in. There are schedules which list the particular instances in which he can do this.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said, in this case the Minister's powers for intervention, as expressed here, might actually worsen the situation for my constituents and the supply of water in my area, because the pressure on him from Wales, in circumstances which are highly individual, make the situation worse rather than better.
Therefore, I support the amendment because I think that we have an excuse here for not doing anything specific about the resolution of these conflicts and problems which are created by the Bill. What I would rather see is amendments brought forward—by the Government I hope—to deal quite specifically with the problem by allowing far greater representation, for instance, by the bodies supplying water to the authority which, in effect, will be sovereign in this matter.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who said that he feels that this is all a bit of a tragedy because we are looking for jobs for the Assembly to do and we thought that water was an innocent thing. But, as has been shown in the case of fisheries, the supply of water and forestry, many highly sensitive matters are involved here, and I suspect that they have not been formally thought through.
But if we cannot get greater representation, I feel that there is an obligation upon the Government to build into the Bill, at the very least, the machinery whereby, quite formally, the Severn-Trent Water Authority, in this case, can make public representations and public objections in a way in which it will feel totally uninhibited in terms of representing the interests that it serves. At present, the whole thing is done, as I say, by nods and winks in the Bill—"Come and see us quietly. The Minister can intervene in certain circumstances." But what is proposed is totally unspecific and very worrying.
I am sure that the Minister has had plenty of representations on this precise matter from the Severn-Trent Water Authority. That authority is extremely concerned about the vagueness of the Bill and about the authority's ultimate powers to serve and represent its interests, which are now becoming extremely ill-defined.
The reason I support the amendment is that the Bill does not do anything to cover the specific anomalies and specific conflicts which, if allowed to persist, will result in the largest water authority in the country being powerless, in effect, to serve the consumers that it has been set up to serve. We might as well wind it up, because it will remain powerless, in effect, on all major matters of policy.
I hope that the Minister will come up with something rather more specific than the generalised statement that we are now debating which, anyway, could work to the further detriment of the authority concerned.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am very grateful—and I am sure that the Committee concurs with me—to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for exploring the argument so nicely in his

opening remarks on the amendment. The clarity with which he put forward the pitfalls opened by the Bill was quite remarkable. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the manner in which the Minister could, in a very insidious way, expand the powers relating to forestry. I should like to address my remarks to the question how these matters can relate to water, with specific reference to the Welsh National Water Development Authority, which covers Herefordshire.
Herefordshire is one of the areas referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) as being sensitive. We are very sensitive about the way in which we are overshadowed by the WNWDA in the whole matter of water. There is considerable apprehension in Herefordshire, especially among the farming population. In fact, to sum it up basically, we are not happy with the safeguards that are set out in the Bill.
Herefordshire is covered by the Wye hydrological basin, relating to the WNWDA, and partly covered by the Severn hydrological basin, which is dealt with by the Severn-Trent Water Authority. Therefore, problems are beginning to manifest themselves by the fact that the two water authorities are to be handled differently under the Bill. One is to be considered mainly part of Wales or under Welsh auspices, and the other is to be considered mainly part of England under English auspices.
In Herefordshire we do not take kindly to the concept of control from Wales. I have said before in earlier debates on this devolution Bill that we spent a long time asserting our difference from Wales, and that we see this now being eroded back to where we started. As it is, we do not relish being part of the WNWDA. There are problems enough in having a split ministerial responsibility between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Ministers at the Department of the Environment, without the added dimension of a Welsh Assembly being an additional spanner in the works.
Since the vast majority of the territory of the WNWDA is in Wales, Herefordshire and, indeed, part of Cheshire will, under the provisions of the Bill, be heavily overshadowed by Wales. Indeed,


Clause 65, which we may or may not reach in this consideration, indicates that under the proposals of the Bill, all of Herefordshire is to be covered by the WNWDA and is to be considered as part of Wales for water purposes. This will have the effect of extending the sphere of operation of the Welsh Assembly across the border and into parts of England. I do not think that this is acceptable.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is sympathetic with that area of Mid-Wales which has been heavily overshadowed by the Severn-Trent Water Authority since 1974, or does his sympathy extend only one way?

Mr. Shepherd: My sympathy extends very much towards my part of the world, which is Herefordshire. But I should like to make it quite clear that I want to see the whole question of water removed from the concept of devolution altogether. I think that it is a national matter which does not lend itself to being tackled in a devolved manner. The problems that we are creating for ourselves by running together regional water areas which cross national boundaries and then trying to run national boundaries through them make a nonsense of the whole issue. This is one of the symptoms of that nonsense, which we are now trying to tackle, to which the Bill gives rise and, indeed, amplifies.
I have said that it is not an attractive proposition to have the Welsh Assembly with a finger in English pies and, indeed, particularly in Herefordshire pies, because the Welsh Assembly will be responsible, in electoral terms, only to Welsh interests. This cannot be acceptable to the English areas affected. As a result of the clause, Ministers will have powers to
modify or exclude any provision of this Act." 
It is difficult to see how the interests of the English side of the border can be guaranteed protection. 
It is set out that, in effect, Herefordshire will be subject to the Welsh Assembly for a whole host of functions. These include drainage charges—I have specific interest in land drainage matters—the appointment of nominee land drainage members of the Welsh National

Water Development Authority, and the payment, constitution and appointment of regional land drainage committees.
Local representation in bodies involved in these matters is immensely important to farmers and fishermen in the South Herefordshire area. Schedule 11 indicates that one member from Hereford will be appointed by the Hereford and Worcester County Council to the regional land drainage committee. But one member will be very heavily overshadowed by the massive weight of Welsh opinion on the other side. What guarantees have we that Herefordshire's interests will be properly safeguarded? I can see none in the Bill.
The anticipated urban domination of the Welsh authority—Assembly—I will insist on calling the Welsh Assembly the Welsh "authority" and I have a feeling that that is what it will turn out to be—its anticipated urban domination does not breed any confidence that rural interests, let alone Herefordshire's rural interests, will be adequately considered, let alone safeguarded. With the powers contained in subsection (2) left in the Bill, there can be no guarantees that the representation will not be either modified or excluded in the future.
In trying to fight this, the representatives from the English side of the border will be hopelessly outgunned by the Welsh interests with specific reference to land drainage matters. The Welsh National Water Development Authority, the Welsh Office and the Welsh Assembly have overlapping functions. Are local and regional land drainage committees to be the servants of one, two or all those masters?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am following with interest the hon. Member's speech about Herefordshire being overshadowed by Wales. I often think of the similar situation of Wales being overshadowed by England. However, he had a remedy. He could have put down an amendment to make Wales an entity in the administration of water, thereby excluding Herefordshire completely. There was no need to follow the hydrological principle. It is not followed in the Fens or for rivers running between Scotland and Wales, and it need not be followed in the case of Wales.

Mr. Shepherd: I considered that, but felt that it was better to take the concept of water out of devolution altogether because of the problems that it created. I see no reason to modify my views in the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
I am worried about political influence on the Herefordshire and Cheshire side of the border as a result of the structure of the Welsh Assembly, whose politics may be quite different. Because of the extension of the Assembly's powers across the border through the WNWDA, it could impose policies to which Herefordshire was completely unsympathetic.
I understand that the Severn-Trent Water Authority has received assurances against that kind of control by the Welsh, but I cannot see how the Bill provides safeguards. Are we to depend totally on ministerial assurance?

Mr. Michael Spicer: With reference to what my hon. Friend said about the lack of rural representation under the new regime, if we continue to have a Labour Government, any reassurance on that matter is likely to count for very little anyway.

Mr. Shepherd: I heartily agree. That is certainly the sort of point which worries me. Arrogant Socialist government often seeks to dictate to areas which are not under its control. The same problem will arise over the water representation on the WNWDA. Schedule 11 provides for the appointment of five members from England—one each from the county councils of Cheshire and Hereford and Worcester, one each from the district councils covering Herefordshire and Worcestershire and one as a sort of carve-up between the Secretary of State and the Minister.
The amendment to the Water Act 1973 contains that explicit structure:
…the Welsh Assembly shall not charge any committee of the Assembly with the exercise of the power to make an order varying that constitution.
So far, so good. But under the clause, if that was not to take effect, the Minister would have power to vary Schedule 11. He would therefore be able to amend the Water Act 1973 by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure, which seems too easy a way to do a massive exercise like amending a major Act.
I have tried to show that in my part of the country we are not happy with the safeguards or the way in which the interests of rural England and the Marches will be looked after in the circumstances which will arise from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give me some positive statement on how these matters will be safeguarded.

Mr. John Parker: That great Welshman Nye Bevan was one of the strongest opponents of devolution. He made a speech in which he said that the problems of sheep farmers in Devon, Carmarthen and Argyll were similar and should be dealt with by one Government. Quite rightly, the Government have decided not to devolve agriculture—but they are to devolve forestry.
Most of us who are interested in forestry favour its integration with agriculture. Because the EEC has a common agricultural policy, ours has to keep in line, whereas there are so far no pronounced EEC policies on forestry. That may not continue for long. Interesting discussions are going on in an attempt to co-ordinate European forestry policy. In the Alps and many other areas, such as parts of central France, big reafforestation programmes are in hand because it is realised that much of the hill peasant farming is no longer viable in modern conditions.
The same is true in this island. Much hill farming is not viable without a subsidy from the State. It may be necessary and desirable from our national point of view to keep hill farming going. As a member of the executive of the National Trust, I know that we do that in the Lake District to keep land in its present condition, grazed by sheep so that it will not return to scrub.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I think that the hon. Member said that hill farming was not viable. Hill farming in the kind of areas that I represent is certainly an essential part of the cycle of breeding and rearing animals and the lambs and calves bred in those areas are then exported into the lowlands for fattening. Far from hill farming not being viable, market prices recently have shown a substantial improvement, particularly in that sector, although there are problems with the overall income generated. But the hill cow subsidy is a subsidy to the producer


which is reflected in the total cycle of agricultural production. Without that input, it would not be possible for the whole cycle to be viable.

Mr. Parker: I agree that I probably exaggerated, but it is a fact that the merging of hill farms is necessary to make life viable for many farmers. In the national interest—not the Welsh, the Scottish or the English, but the British interest—we must keep a great deal of hill farming going, if necessary through State subsidy. If we are to have a big forestry industry—we need it in view of the large imports of wood products—land must be made available for afforestation. The great difficulty for the Forestry Commission and private people wanting to plant is to obtain the necessary land.
There should be a United Kingdom policy on how to use our limited supply of land. I would favour discussions among forestry interests on both sides of the Committee and between the Government and the Forestry Commission and private owners to achieve an agreed planting programme for the next 50 years. Such a programme was set out in 1919. I estimate that by the end of this century we shall have approximately carried out that planting programme, partly through the Forestry Commission and partly through private owners. A national policy and programme on forestry must be agreed, and it can be done only on a United Kingdom basis. It must be linked with agriculture. There must be no competition but a planned division of land use between those interests.
I agree that in our forests there should be recreational and other activities. The Forestry Commission and a number of private owners have done a great deal to develop these leisure activities, but that is not the main purpose of growing forests. The main purpose is to produce timber. This is very important from a national point of view, because the timber-producing countries are tending to send the finished products here and the timber-using industries will find it more and more difficult to obtain their raw materials if they cannot obtain them inside this country. Therefore, we must have forestry run on a United Kingdom basis.
What do the Government propose? The Forestry Commission is to remain a United Kingdom organisation. The

English part of forestry is to be financed from Westminster, but the Assemblies in Wales and in Scotland are to control the amount of money made available and the size of staffs in Wales and Scotland. I do not see how it is possible to run an industry successfully on a United Kingdom basis when it is divided up in that way.
Why should this one particular nationalised industry be divided up? We do not propose to divide up coal, the railways, iron and steel or any of the other nationalised industries. There is no case for dividing up forestry in the way suggested.
There is strong opposition to this proposal throughout the industry. Last weekend I addressed a gathering of professional foresters from the whole of the United Kingdom. They were all against the proposal to divide up forestry or devolve it in this way.
Most members of the Civil Service trade union covering the Forestry Commission are in Scotland, but their organisation is strongly against devolution and the breaking up of the industry. I agree that it has been said that the career structure will be safeguarded. I have found only one private forester who supports devolution, and he is a Scot, not a Welshman. Everywhere else people in the industry, whether in the Commission or working in the private woodlands, are against devolution of the industry. They want it to remain united.

Mr. Dalyell: The Commission is somewhat muted, because it has Civil Service loyalties. With his great knowledge of the industry, can my hon. Friend confirm that there will be great problems for the administration of forests in England if the headquarters remain in Edinburgh and great problems in Scotland if it does not? After it has been taken from Basingstoke, to have yet another upset would not be a good idea.

Mr. Parker: I am strongly in favour of the headquarters being in Scotland, because the greater amount of the land already forested or to be forested is in Scotland. But the danger here is that the English and Welsh sections may feel out on a limb because they are much smaller than the Scottish section of the industry.
The industry must be planned on a United Kingdom basis. Who can


organise if the planting programmes are to be decided by the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales while Westminster decides the programme for England? Who can organise matters not knowing where the finances will come from year to year? That strengthens my case for trying to have an agreed 50 years programme.
I believe that this is another example of the Government's looking around for something to devolve. They asked "Why not the Forestry Commission? Why not pass it over or divide it up?" I think that that has been rather the attitude. If we are to have proper use of land in this small island in the years to come, it must be decided on a United Kingdom basis. There must be unity in policies on agriculture and forestry, and they must work together.

Mr. Jasper More: I want briefly to support and reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) about forestry. I had the honour on Monday last week to be invited to a large forestry gathering in Wales. I am unable to pronounce the name of the county in which the meeting was held, but I think that before local government reorganisation it was Flintshire.

Sir Raymond Gower: Clwyd.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. More: Although the temperature was several degrees below zero and there was a strong north-east wind, I had the opportunity to talk to a considerable number of the 100 or so people present, mostly from Wales, I think. I did not hear from any of them any desire that there should be devolution of forestry to Wales.
We also had the honour to have with us the Chairman of the Forestry Commission and I had the opportunity to listen to a considerable speech from him. It may be that because of his official position he is unable to make any definite pronouncements about the merits or otherwise of devolution, but there was certainly nothing in the tenor of his speech to suggest that he actively favoured it.
The hon. Member for Dagenham referred to some of the disadvantages that must flow from any disorganisation of the

present Forestry Commission structure. He mentioned integration with agriculture. I am sure that when we see what is being done or attempted in Europe and what is likely to be done or attempted in this country we must realise the importance of this.
The integration of forestry and agriculture is a most difficult and complicated question. It ultimately all comes down to a question of land use. It is absurd to think that in Wales this will be done by an authority which is different from the Ministry which will still be dealing with agriculture from London.
One might also mention the critical and topical problem of tree diseases. Some of us are aware of the terrible devastation that has recently happened to our elms. I read an alarming article in a forestry paper in the past few days saying how many potential tree diseases there were in the world. The total was about 100. At any time, because of the large imports of timber that we must have, our trees may become infected by any of those diseases. When that happens, it is surely sensible that we should have an authority which is paramount in the whole of this island—disease control must be a question of geography more than anything else—and is capable of putting forward concerted policies which geographically cover the whole of Great Britain.
I do not know what expertise there would be in a Welsh Assembly to deal with such questions. I do not even know whether it would be possible to translate into the Welsh language most of the diseases. I am not an expert on this.
If it would be bad to make this suggested devolution to the Assembly, I believe that it would be even worse to leave the position as it is apparently contemplated in the clause, because it is left in a state of total uncertainty.
It seems that we might be left chronically with the Minister being subjected to recurring pressure from an Assembly to make an order for devolution in regard to forestry, an order which he had not originally made. To have permanent uncertainty in this important industry would be the worst possible result.
Therefore, I hope that on reconsideration the Minister will accept the amendment and Amendment No. 92 and stop this nonsense.

Mr. John Smith: Some time ago, it seems, the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) moved the amendment, on the sixth day of our Committee proceedings, and put forward in his usual careful way a precise legal argument, the general effect of which was that the powers conferred on the Minister by the Bill were too wide and might be abused. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued that there could be a form of creeping devolution whereby the Minister, without reference to Parliament or with inadequate reference to Parliament, could confer on the Welsh Assembly extra powers of a kind which might not meet the approval of Parliament if the matter were put forward in the most precise way in which most of the matters are dealt with in the Bill.
We are in this case dealing with the bodies listed in Schedule 7, and subsection (2) has relevance to the bodies in Part I of Schedule 7. These are bodies which operate at present on an England and Wales basis or a Great Britain basis. Consequently, some provision needs to be made to divide their responsibilities so that they can account satisfactorily to and be responsible to the Welsh Assembly for their activities in Wales, while remaining responsible to the Government for their other operations.
Another way to do it—it was attempted in the Scotland and Wales Bill—would be to make special detailed arrangements for all the bodies concerned. But that would have burdened the Bill with immense detail about accounts, appointments, finance and other matters which might better be dealt with by order.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), who said that he had difficulty in finding his way round the Bill. I agree that in some parts it is complex. But if we do not take the slightly broader power set out in the clause, we have to go into greater detail. One of the effects of carrying the amendment would be that we should have to go into greater detail, and would find the problems even greater.
Another difficulty is that if detailed arrangements are made in advance, it means that they have to be made without the opportunity for the Welsh Assembly to be consulted on the nature and

detail of the changes to be made. Indeed, in many cases the Assembly might be content that only minor changes were made—for example, enabling it to make a nomination to a board of management, or some such matter as that.
It was necessary, in dealing with these bodies, to distinguish between those whose devolution is central to the devolution of functions in the field in which they operate and those whose devolution can be postponed. We felt that provision must be made for the first group from day one, and they are listed in Part I of Schedule 7. Other functions, whose devolution could be postponed without producing administrative complication, are set out in Part II. Accordingly, those bodies shown in Part I have already had most of the relevant functions transferred by the entries in the appropriate part of Schedule 2. Some of the functions which need to be divided as between England and Wales are at present expressed in a way which makes them unsplittable—if I might use that word—without some modification.
The effect of an order under the clause would be to re-express the functions in a way which would make them operable separately by both the Assembly and the Minister. The order is needed not just to confer clearly defined powers on the Assembly but to tidy up the powers remaining with the Minister. By contrast, functions relating to bodies shown in Part II have mostly been reserved in the appropriate parts of Schedule 2. An order under Clause 61(3) is accordingly needed in order to transfer these functions for the first time.
I could go into greater detail, but I think that the essential point argued by the hon. and learned Member for Cleve land and Whitby was that it was really too much to give this power to the Minister. Very often in a Bill—and subsequently in an Act of Parliament—quite wide powers are given to the Minister, and Parliament is rightly careful about conferring such powers on the Minister, and asks Ministers for justification for them. The justification that I offer here is that it allows us to cut down a great deal of the detail in the Bill. This means that, in a sense, we have to take on trust to a certain extent the powers that the Minister exercises; but that is a usual' feature of many Bills. It is also worth


bearing in mind the limited scale that is involved here. It is only the bodies in Part I of Schedule 7 which are affected by the subsection which it is sought to delete.
One point which might be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is that we intend later in the course of these debates to accept amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and in the name of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) which will have the effect of transferring the British Waterways Board and the Inland Waterways Advisory Council from Part I to Part II. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and the hon. Member for Reading, North both made detailed representations to the Government on the matter, and I had the opportunity of discussing them. Although I do not think that they agreed with all my arguments or conclusions, I think they accepted that we were seeking to assist in some way. As I have indicated, it is our intention to accept the amendments, so that there will be these exclusions from Part I. Therefore we are dealing only with the rest of the bodies in Part I.
Some hon. Members seemed to feel that the Welsh Assembly could take power to itself, but these powers can be conferred only if a Minister of the Crown seeks to give it the powers. I do not know that it would be a characteristic of a Government that they would readily seek to shower new powers upon a Welsh Assembly. It would have to be a considered collective decision by the British Government that certain powers ought to be transferred. The likelihood of there being vast changes to the devolution settlement by the use of ministerial powers of this character is, therefore, a little farfetched politically.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby did not say that this would happen. What he said was that, on the face of the words in the Bill, it could technically happen, and I think that is so. But we have to look at it with an eye to some political reality.
Before I leave that part of the argument, I should perhaps mention that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred briefly to the fact that the only safeguard

that Parliament has is the negative resolution procedure. Although he did not develop that at length, it was a key part of his argument. He said that such wide powers, on the face of it, were to be given to a Minister that it was not very desirable for the control of Parliament to be only by the negative resolution procedure. I have thought very carefully about that. There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. Amendment No. 294 relates to this point.
Having reflected on this matter, I am convinced by the hon. and learned Member's argument that it would be desirable that, instead of the negative resolution procedure applying here, the affirmative resolution procedure should apply. I therefore intimate to the Committee that if the hon. and learned Gentleman moves Amendment No. 294 at the appropriate point—I think that will not be very far from now—I shall be disposed to accept it.
There were some other points raised in the debate with which I should now like to deal. Hon. Members ranged far and wide on a number of precise points. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned fishing and pure water, and the necessity for having a national policy on water resources. I thought that his aspirations on policy questions were desirable, and that there ought to be the maximum co-ordination between the Welsh Assembly and the British Government on the management of our water resources.
The hon. Gentleman may care to note that Clause 65(3) and Part II and Part IV of Schedule 8—we may come to those later on—give the Minister considerable powers to intervene to protect the interests of England, Indeed in Schedule 8, Part II, paragraph 3(1)(b) on page 66 there is specific mention of the interests of the owners of fishing rights in England. The Severn will continue to be managed as a whole by the Severn-Trent Water Authority. The authority will remain in existence, even though ministerial powers may be divided. The hon. Gentleman should, with respect, weigh that in the balance together with the points that he made.

Mr. Onslow: Does the Minister believe that those who fear that local interests


in Wales may be able to override national interests in the Severn as a whole are imagining things which will not come to pass? Is it not possible that these things will happen?

Mr. Smith: One has to look at these matters with a eye to reality. I am simply reminding the hon. Gentleman that there is power in the Bill, in the event that such a thing occurred, for the Minister to intervene. That is a protection which relates to the sort of concern that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I feel that it is reasonable for me to draw his attention—and that of his constituents who are concerned about the matter—to that point.
During the debate I have heard feats expressed about England dominating Wales, and equally about Wales dominating England. It rather depends on which side of the border one is standing, or which side one represents. I felt that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) did not have a very large vision. He said that he was interested not in Wales but only in Hereford. The Government in planning legislation have to look at both sides, and we have tried to do our best by giving quite wide powers of intervention, if they are needed. We hope that it will be possible for many of these matters to be resolved by co-operation between the Assembly and the British Government.
6.30 p.m.
Some hon. Members feared that Amendment No. 92 would not be reached. As a result the hon. Member for Buckingham, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham took the opportunity to air their views on forestry. I think that they are wrong. I think that we shall reach Amendment No. 92. The knife on this part of the guillotine does not fall until 9 o'clock. I have indicated that we are likely to accept a number of amendments between now and Amendment No. 92. Therefore, it is quite possible that we shall have a debate on Amendment No. 92.
In fact, we might even have been on that debate now were it not for the fact that some hon. Members were so apprehensive that we might not reach it that they made their speeches in advance. The hon. Member for Buckingham was

quite frank about that. I think that it would be better to have a proper debate on forestry when we come to that matter. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is anxious to reply to that debate when it is reached.
The main point of this debate has been about subsection (2) and the attempt and suggestion by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby that it should be deleted. These are all matters of judgment. I think I have gone some way to allay some of the fears by indicating that in the circumstances we are agreeable to accepting the affirmative resolution proposals. It may that the hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to withdraw his amendment. But that is a matter for him. The offer to accept the amendment is in no way conditional upon his doing that. We have come to the view that the affirmative resolution is genuinely more desirable because some complicated matters may be involved about which Parliament ought to be reassured.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister of State said that some people were afraid that England would dominate Wales while others were afraid that Wales would dominate England. He drew the conclusion that those fears were unjustified. I would draw the conclusion that if it is possible to arouse fears on both sides of the Anglo-Welsh border then something must be seriously wrong with the Government's proposals.
In moving this amendment a fortnight ago, I made clear that our objection was to the fact that the Minister was able, without a full Act of Parliament, to extend the devolution powers of the Welsh Assembly not only by transferring the powers of certain independent bodies to the Assembly but also by extending the provisions of the Wales Act itself, so that the Schedule 2 powers could be greatly increased and more power be given. In addition, the powers which at present are excluded in Schedule 2 could be removed by the modification which the Minister could make.
The Minister of State was candid enough to indicate that that was a justified fear in the sense that those powers did exist under subsection (2). If, of course, the Act had said "limit" rather than "modify", that fear would not have


been justified. But the Minister has not suggested altering that. The situation remains that what the Government are proposing would enable the Government to transfer powers to the Welsh Assembly and to modify the Act itself, greatly increasing the devolved powers passed to the Welsh Assembly.
It is true that Clause 61 has been sufficiently eroded by the arguments that have been put forward for the Government to indicate that they are prepared to remove two of the bodies from Part I of Schedule 7 and also to substitute the affirmative resolution procedure for Clause 61(5). These are certainly improvements to the Bill, but they do not deal—

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman a little naive about this—

Mr. Brittan: I have not finished yet.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it conceivable that an Assembly, in the first few months of its existence, would not ask precisely for that transfer?

Mr. Brittan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not being naive. I was about to say that, although the changes which the Government indicated they would accept were beneficial, they do not go far enough for me to seek to withdraw the amendment or to do anything other than advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it in the Division.
The Minister talked about political reality. Although the power theoretically existed for the Minister to confer new powers, over and above what was in the Bill, by the order referred to in subsection (2), he asked whether it was likely that the Minister would do so. In answer to that, I revert to the point that I made in an earlier intervention. One of two things will happen. Either the pressure will be exerted and the Minister will acquiesce—that is one undesirable consequence in which devolution powers will be passed to the Assembly without a proper Act of Parliament and simply by means of a statutory instrument, an order

and a vote of this House, but not proper legislation—or there will be strong representations from Cardiff which the Minister will resist.
What we say is that that will lead to precisely the kind of political conflict which is at the root of our objections to this whole form of devolution. That will happen again and again. It is because we object to that happening that we shall divide the Committee and seek to persuade it that it is not right for subsection (2) to remain in the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Had there not been a guillotine motion I would have repeated at length, ad nauseam and seriatim, all the questions which I have put about the Inland Waterways Board. However, I shall spare colleagues that for the only reason that there is a guillotine.
Frankly, if I was churlish about it, I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State "Thank you very much for nothing". This transfer from Part I to Part II is meaningless. It sounds good enough, but it is absolutely empty and meaningless. It is impossible that an Assembly would not ask for these powers. Therefore, here again we are at a point of conflict.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am sorry that the Minister of State appeared to think that in making this relatively small concession he was removing our chief objection to this part of the Bill. He seemed to think that what remained was comparatively trivial or less important. But what is very objectionable is that the power for a Minister in future to extend this area of devolution should exist in the Bill at all. The Bill should either provide a full procedure for some separate future legislation—it should make clear that it did not envisage any such extension—or there should be no Parts I and II at all.
Even so, that would not meet our objection because our objection is to the clause itself which permits this procedure. I am sorry that the Minister of State thinks that that is so unimportant.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 146, Noes 165.

Division No. 171]
AYES
[4.26 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Dunlop, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Durant, Tony
Hawkins, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Benyon, W.
Elliott, Sir William
Hicks, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hodgson, Robin


Biffen, John
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hooson, Emlyn


Body, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bottomley, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Brittan, Leon
Fisher, Sir Nigel
James, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Burden, F. A.
Freud, Clement
Jopling, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Glyn, Dr Alan
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Knox, David


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lamont, Norman


Crawford, Douglas
Grieve, Percy
Lawrence, Ivan


Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lawson, Nigel


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grist, Ian
Le Marchant, Spencer




Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Stanley, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Steel, Rt Hon David


MacGregor, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Madel, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Norman


Marten, Neil
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mates, Michael
Rhodes James, R.
Thompson, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ridsdale, Julian
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Viggers, Peter


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wakeham, John


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sainsbury, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shepherd, Colin
Welsh, Andrew


Mudd, David
Shersby, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Neave, Airey
Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Newton, Tony
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Onslow, Cranley
Speed, Keith



Pardoe, John
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Mr. Roger Sims and


Penhaligon, David
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Michael Neubert.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Allaun, Frank
Gould, Bryan
Pavitt, Laurie


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Radice, Giles


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bean, R. E.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harper, Joseph
Roderick, Caerwyn


Boardman, H.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Rooker, J. W.


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Rose, Paul B.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sever, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastie W)
Hunter, Adam
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Buchanan, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sillars, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Cant, R. B.
Kelley, Richard
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lamborn, Harry
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cohen, Stanley
Litterick, Tom
Stott, Roger


Coleman, Donald
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Strang, Gavin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Corbett, Robin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cryer, Bob
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Dalyell, Taom
McNamara, Kevin
Torney, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Madden, Max
Urwin, T. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Dormand, J. D.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Eadie, Alex
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mitchell, Austin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


English, Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Newens, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Noble, Mike
Young, David (Bolton E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Halloran, Michael



Forrester, John
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Padley, Walter
Mr. Sydney Tierney and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Park, George
Mr. E. Fernyhough.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John

Division No. 172]
AYES
[6.38 p.m.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Arnold, Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Banks, Robert
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hodgson, Robin
Rathbone, Tim


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, R.


Bottomley, Peter
Hurd, Douslas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Brittan, Leon
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brotherton, Michael
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sovenoaks)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Buck, Antony
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Langford-Hoit, Sir John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Carlisle, Mark
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shepherd, Colin


Chalkor, Mrs Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Channon, Paul
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Clark, William (Croydon [...])
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Luce, Richard
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Dunlop, John
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James
Wells, John


Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David
Younger, Hon George


Grieve, Percy
Nelson, Anthony



Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael




Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grylls, Michael
Nott, John
Mr. Jim Lester and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John (Islington C)


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harper, Joseph


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bates, Alf
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Bean, S. E.
Dewar, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dolg, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dormand, J. D.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes. Roy (Newport)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Canavan, Dennis
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Eristol S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kelley, Richard


Cohen, Stanley
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
George, Bruce
Lambie, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan
Lamborn, Harry


Crawford, Douglas
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)







Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litterick, Tom
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons. Edward (Bradford W)
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McElhone, Frank
Radice, Giles
Thompson, George


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tierney, Sydney


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomlinson, John


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robinson, Geoffrey
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Madden, Max
Rose, Paul B.
Ward, Michael


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watkins, David


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watt, Hamish


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew


Mendelson, John
Sedgemore, Brian
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Sever, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William



Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Newens, Stanley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Oakes, Gordon
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Halloran, Michael
 Steel, Rt Hon David 
Woodall, Alec 


Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Woof, Robert 


Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) 
 


Palmer, Arthur
 Stoddart, David 
 TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pardoe, John
 Strang, Gavin 
 Mr. Ted Graham and 


Park, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. James Tinn. 


Parry, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, in page 24, line 21, after 'imposing', insert
', or enabling the imposition of,'.
This amendment is similar to one that was moved on the Scotland Bill. It arises from the fact that Clause 61(3)(d) provides that an order dividing responsibility for any public body listed in Schedule 7 may impose
any special limits in addition to or in substitution for existing limits".
The provision is intended to cope with the situation where an existing Act lays down a statutory limit on the amounts which may be advanced to a body from the National Loans Fund or, as in the case of the Housing Corporation, on the total amount of guarantees which may be issued.
Statutory limits of this kind cease to have any relevance when the Welsh operations of the bodies concerned are subject to the control of the Assembly with the advances to be made from the Welsh Loan Fund. Therefore, it is desirable to make it possible to have separate Welsh limits laid down.
Clauses 61(3)(d) as it stands enables a ministerial order itself to impose new Welsh limits on the total which may be advanced to the British Waterways Board for its Welsh operations. This could involve some derogation from devolution in that it could involve the Minister in

decisions which properly accord to the Assembly as part of its new responsibility for the body concerned. The amendment accordingly provides for an alternative procedure which is likely in practice to enable the ministerial order to provide for any new limit that is desired to be imposed by the Assembly, possibly by order made in plenary session.
Paragraph 12 of Schedule 11 already provides for limits on borrowings by new towns in Wales to be so laid down by the Assembly. This is purely a technical amendment and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move Government Amendment No. 217, in page 24, line 22, at end insert:
'(dd) providing, in the case of a body listed in Part II of Schedule 7 to this Act, for the application of section 50 above;'

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we shall take the following amendments:
No. 91, in Schedule 7, page 64, leave out lines 5 and 6.
No. 93, in page 64, leave out lines 11 and 12.
No. 94, in page 64, line 23, at end insert:
'The British Waterways Board. The Transport Act 1962 (c. 46), section 1'.


No 95, in page 65, line 13, at end insert:
The Inland Waterways Amenity, The Transport Act 1968 (c. 73), section 110' Advisory Council.

Mr. Jones: Government amendment No. 217 is consequential upon the decision already announced to hon. Members that we propose to accept Amendments Nos. 91, 93, 94 and 95. However, I must say that when it was made known that we were prepared to accept the amendments the news was not greeted with much pleasure in some parts of the Committee and I began to wonder whether we were doing the right thing.
This matter was raised earlier when we were discussing inland waterways in general terms. The Government believe that the responsibility for inland waterways and, by extension, ministerial responsibility for operations in Wales of the British Waterways Board and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council should be transferred to the Welsh Assembly at some stage. It is not the case, as has been suggested, that the Government are scurrying around looking for functions to give to the Assembly.
The waterways have close links with other devolved matters. They are very closely connected with tourism, the countryside and leisure facilities. If these matters are to be devolved it is reasonable and proper, and it makes a neat package, for the inland waterways to be devolved similarly. We must take account of the fact that responsibilities for transport infrastructure are to be devolved as well.
We have received a number of representations suggesting that the immediate transfer of responsibility for these bodies could cause certain difficulties. When we were discussing this matter on the Scotland Bill the Government accepted comparable amendments which will, in fact, permit the timing of the devolution of these responsibilities to depend on a request from the Scottish administration.
For these reasons, I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. Tony Durant: I accept that the Government have been kind enough to make a small concession, but although it was made in line with the concession on the Scotland Bill there is a

fundamental difference between the Welsh and Scottish waterways. The Welsh waterways are connected directly with England and are not separate canals and waterways. Therefore, I hope that, despite this concession, the Minister will reconsider this matter at a later stage.
The idea of the operation of the inland waterways being set up as a separate entity in Wales is almost laughable. There are 80 miles of canals and 20 locks. The existing staff consists of two engineers and about 60 manual workers. To set up a board to run this operation is a complete nonsense and I urge the Minister to rethink the matter.
The amendment enables the Assembly to take this on "at some time". The dangers of "some time" can be those of the Assembly doing things in no time at all. The Welsh will be anxious to do things and they will set up a new water authority to get on and run these canals. With 80 miles of waterways this is a nonsense. The canals include a reserve waterway of 30 miles—the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal, which is not part of the British Waterways Board itself. Therefore, the whole proposal is a complete nonsense.
The voluntary bodies are very concerned about this matter. They feel that the British Waterways Board provides a good back-up service to the work they are doing to try to get the canals reopened, and to provide a leisure industry on which Wales depends. But they believe it is nonsense to set up a new authority to run a small organisation like this.
Much of the operation is run from two towns across the border—Northwich and Gloucester. This means setting up an administrative headquarters to run the new authority, and this would mean once again entering into a lot of bureaucratic machinery to run a very small entity.
The Select Committee, which looked at the whole question of the British Waterways Board, said:
Your Committee recommend that the Government should table an amendment to remove the British Waterways Board from the provisions of the Scotland and Wales Bill".
That was the view of a Select Committee of this House which examined the matter in considerable detail and it was recommending that the Government


should delete that body from the Bill. Although there are some arguments on the Scottish side where it can be said that the canals are treated as separate because there are more of them, the waterways in Wales run directly into England. Therefore, the provision as it stands would be a nonsense.
7.0 p.m.
The other important matter relates to the Select Committee report on the future of the British Waterways Board—a report which puts in question the Government's White Paper on the future of the water industry. Because of the Select Committee's report, I believe that we should go ahead and debate the water industry and try to elicit what the Government intend to do about the future of the water industry. That matter is tied up with these provisions and is important in considering the future of inland waterways. Many of the voluntary bodies are concerned and anxious that they will not obtain the backup which they have obtained from the British Waterways Board in carrying out many of the voluntary projects.
I urge the Minister to think again about this matter in relation to Wales because the situation as it stands is ridiculous. We should aim at providing a body that will be able to do something worthwhile for the inland waterways.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 294, in page 24, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert:
No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."—[Mr. Brittan.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was right to describe the clause as a manhole clause. A great deal has come up from this manhole in the course of this debate, and when we go down into the manhole we find that it leads us into the tunnels of Schedule 7.
Considerable permissive powers are given in Clause 61 to Ministers of the Crown in relation to the bodies in Schedule 7. There are 24 public bodies listed

in the schedule, six in Part I and 18 in Part II, but the Government have now transferred two of these bodies from Part I to Part II, which was a wise thing for the Government to do.
By Clause 61 a Minister of the Crown may by order subject to affirmative resolution—and we are glad that the Government accepted our amendment in that regard—make significant changes in the composition and supervision of these bodies after consultation with them. Exactly what the word "consultation" means in this context remains to be seen, but I imagine that the Government can proceed with or without the agreement of the body concerned.
The difference between the bodies listed in Parts I and II is that those in Part I are subject to Clause 61(2) whereby a Minister of the Crown
may by order modify or exclude any provision of this Act".
We are familiar with excluded powers and functions—indeed, Schedule 2 is full of them—but the power to modify provisions can mean an addition to or subtraction from the powers of the Assembly. My hon. and learned Friend was right to imply that the greater threat was to increase the powers of the Assembly at the stroke of a ministerial pen, and subject now to an affirmative resolution.
I believe that subsection (2) also reveals the Government's uncertainty about the rectitude of their proposals in regard to the bodies listed in Part I. They are important bodies in the sense that their policies and activities have repercussions far beyond Wales. In this instance we have the Government seeking to tamper with their constitutions and delivering to an untried Assembly powers of appointment to them.
Some of these bodies require that those nominated to them should be able to take a British national view in addition to a Welsh national view. Some are bodies which require primarily from their members considerable knowledge and expertise in the subject, and the question is whether the Assembly can provide such people. Will they not by their nature be politically-motivated persons who will have to beat the Welsh drum all the time? They will be answerable to the Assembly, and nothing will matter there except the direct and immediate interests of Wales.
There is a similar but shorter schedule to the Scotland Bill—Schedule 13—providing for Assembly nominations to certain bodies with United Kingdom responsibilities. If Wales and Scotland can press their regional interests, English national interests will have to be represented, too. That seems to me to be logical and inevitable. Therefore, the whole character of the public bodies affected may be changed. I do not think the Government wish to see such a change, but they have landed themselves with it, and, in my opinion, it will come about.
With regard to the 20 bodies now listed in Part II of the schedule, an order under Clause 61
shall not be made except at the request of the Assembly".
In other words, the provisions of the Bill may not be modified or excluded in relation to those bodies. There are important bodies here, too, such as the National Water Council, which was set up under Section 4 of the 1973 Water Act. So far as I can see the Government at present do not intend to tamper with the constitution of that body. It has a statutory Welsh member in the chairman of the Welsh Water Authority. Members of the council have to be
persons appearing to the Secretary of State or the Minister, as the case may he, to have special knowledge of matters relevant to the functions of the water authorities".
There is no regional representative qualification for membership, yet the Government are leaving the door open so that the Welsh Assembly could press for the power of nomination.
That is the significance of Part II and, for that matter, of the whole schedule. It is a launching pad for an extension of Assembly influence and power and threatens to undermine the wholly British approach and character of the public bodies concerned. This clause and schedule anticipates the outward ripples of devolution and the regionalisation of bodies which hitherto have been British-national in composition and outlook.
We have heard a great deal about the need to democratise nominated bodies, and that has been one of the Government's major arguments for devolution. But what will happen in practice? We can see how local authority representation may be undermined on the water authority for Wales and assembly nominees

substituted, but what do we really mean when we talk of Assembly appointments? We mean appointments by the Chief Executive and the ruling caucus of the Assembly in all probability. That will be no more democratic than the present system and possibly a good deal less.
What should concern us most is the threat to British institutions with an all-British outlook. I do not think that the House of Commons can approve such a major change of policy and direction as that proposed in the Bill. What we are discussing is giving Ministers the power to sabotage major pieces of legislation to which Parliament has given considerable time and thought over the years. What is worse is that if we pass the clause and schedule we shall be contributing directly to the undermining of the unity of the United Kingdom as it is represented by the public bodies listed in the schedule.
Considerable mention has been made of forestry. There was a short debate on forestry during proceedings on the Scotland Bill. On that occasion the Government failed to give a convincing reply. That is why I suspect that some Labour Members have tabled an amendment on forestry that suggests that the Forestry Commissioners be deleted from the schedule.
That raises the key question whether forestry should be a devolved subject. The arguments against it are that forestry has traditionally been closely allied to agriculture, which is not being devolved except as regards land use and management. Forestry is under the control of a United Kingdom body—the Forestry Commission—and is a subject requiring uniform treatment throughout the United Kingdom.
There is a strong argument against the proposed divorce between forestry and agriculture. That argument has considerable force because before land can be taken for forestry it has to be cleared as being surplus to agricultural requirements. That has meant that in the past the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had to be consulted. It now appears that when dealing with Wales the Assembly will have to be brought into the picture and its permission obtained. It is not clear to me whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will, as represented by the Welsh Office, have to be consulted as well.
Afforestation relates to land use. That is a devolved subject, together with agricultural land management, the countryside, tourism and rural development. It could be argued that the Assembly alone will have to be consulted and that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may safely be ignored. If that is so, farmers who are also timber growers will have to deal with two separate bodies. It will be necessary for them to deal with the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office as regards their farming activities and with the Assembly through the Forestry Commission when dealing with their timber growing.
The split between forestry and agriculture is highly debateable. It is strongly opposed by the Timber Growers Association, on the ground that forestry and agriculture are sister industries and that they should work closer together rather than drift into possible opposition. The Government's statutory advisory body, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, is also against devolving responsibility for forestry.
The real worry of timber growing is that the grants available for planting and management will no longer be uniform throughout the United Kingdom but will vary according to region and that different policies will be pursued in different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, in Wales there is a real fear that because of the preponderance of industrial area representation in the Assembly there will not be much sympathy for the rural timber grower, and little financial support.
All these matters have British-national implications. We have heard from various hon. Members about the importance of forestry to the United Kingdom economy. About 11 per cent. of the total area of Wales is afforested. Of that acreage about 8 per cent. belongs to the Forestry Commission and 3 per cent. to private timber growers. In United Kingdom terms, timber is our third largest item on the import bill. Surely it is vital to British interests that afforestation should be properly encouraged so that we may meet far more of our timber needs from our native resources.
7.15 p.m.
It is a well-known fact that other countries—some of which have been mentioned,


and are frequently mentioned by Plaid Cymru Members—have afforested far more extensively than the United Kingdom and have less dependence on imports, which come mainly from Eastern European countries.
The case against the divorce of forestry from agriculture has been well put by the Scottish Woodland Owners Assocation. What it says about Scotland is equally applicable to Wales. It observes that there are two major users of rural land and that there is a uniformity of view among all who deal with the two industries that they must work in closer partnership and not in opposition.
Land use policy in relation to the private sectors of forestry and agriculture, the assocation says, is bound up with the payments of grants and subsidies. Forestry is to be devolved, but agriculture is to remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. As the Assembly's policy for forestry could be at variance with the Government's policy for agriculture, and vice versa, divergence could arise between the two industries hindering their coming closer together.
The association argues that the Government should retain responsibility for forestry and agriculture and should move towards a grant system embracing them both for the fuller development of land in the uplands and hills throughout Britain. To bring that about it is essential that the formulation of policy and the grant system for the two industries should remain under one control. These are the arguments that the Government have failed to answer to date.
The assocation goes on to tackle an argument put forward by the Minister of State. On 1st February the hon. Gentleman said that
the Government's involvement with agriculture is in financing agriculture. It is very difficult to make different arrangements for financing support systems in agriculture in different parts of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 1st February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 606.]
That is a difficulty that applies equally to forestry.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Government's attitude to forestry. Why is it that we seem to be dealing at length with forestry on every conceivable occasion except the specific amendment to which the Committee will


turn following this debate, which relates to forestry? It would be much more intelligent for the Committee to concentrate on forestry when it considers the appropriate amendment.

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that we shall reach the amendment. Surely the Minister will not deny that forestry has been extensively talked on during the debate. He knows that Clause 61 refers to the schedule and that the Forestry Commissioners are specifically mentioned in the schedule.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that forestry has been referred to extensively in the debate. That is right, but the only person who has spoken in the debate so far is himself. The extensive reference comes from himself and no one else.

Mr. Roberts: I am seldom in the position when I have to say to a Minister that I regret that I gave way to him. However, I am afraid that I must say that on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have debated the clause quite extensively in discussing the amendments to it and that forestry has featured prominently in our discussions.
We are dealing specifically with the power of a Minister to make provisions by order to enable powers to be exercised by the Assembly to authorise the appointment of additional members to the Forestry Commission, to apportion assets and to change financial arrangements. The whole of Clause 61 betrays the uncertainty of the Government and indicates that they are still in a state of muddle as regards the bodies in Part I of Schedule 7, including the Forestry Commissioners. The political and constitutional aspects of whether it is wise or unwise to devolve forestry are no less interesting and important than the economic aspects. In some ways, they are, perhaps, more important.
The Forestry Commission is apparently not shaken by the prospect of devolution. I have a letter from the secretary to that effect. The commission has been helpful to me over matters of fact. The secretary said in his letter:
As I am sure you will appreciate, the Government having decided to proceed with the proposal to devolve forestry, the Forestry Commission's task, as an arm of the Government,

is to determine in what way it can be made to work in the best interests of forestry. The existing organisation of the Commission is in fact well suited to the task. The flexibility needed to manage the Commission's business efficiently, in both its role as Forestry Enterprise and Forestry Authority, and to take full account of regional differences is provided at present by the maximum devolution of responsibility to eleven Conservators (5 in England 4 in Scotland and 2 in Wales). The Commissioners accordingly regard the Government's decision to maintain the Forestry Commission as the instrument for carrying out the English, Scottish and Welsh policies as a workable one.

Mr. Dalyell: Who is that letter from?

Mr. Roberts: It is a letter from Mr. P. J. Clarke, the secretary of the Forestry Commission. He talks about devolution in terms of the responsibility of the 11 conservators, but we are talking not about the conservators but about the commissioners.
Let us look more closely at what is proposed. There are 10 commissioners, including one with a special interest in Wales. They are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of Ministers. In addition, there is a national committee for Wales comprising nine members, with the Welsh Commissioner at their head, two regional advisory committees, one for North Wales and one for South Wales, and the two conservators.
We are talking about the power of Ministers to appoint additional commissioners. It must be significant that the Government want this power and we are entitled to ask why they want it. I believe that the answer is fairly clear. The commission at present is not primarily a regional representative body. It represents forestry interests as a whole and ancillary businesses. The Forestry Act 1967 is clear on the composition of the commission. It says:
Of the persons for the time being appointed to be Forestry Commissioners—

(a) at least three shall be persons who have special knowledge and experience of forestry;
(b) at least one shall be a person who has scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry; and
(c) at least one shall be a person who has special knowledge and experience of the timber trade."

The Act goes on to provide regional representation on the national committees for England, Scotland and Wales.
The Government appear to want to change all this at the top—at commission level—to enable regional representation to take place. Clearly, this could take precedence over the interests of forestry as a whole in the United Kingdom. That is the crux of the matter.
I give the Government credit because I believe that they are dubious about the wisdom of the change that they have in mind. That is why Clause 61(1) is permissive. It may be why we have a Part I and a Part II of Schedule 7, with Clause 61(2) applying only to the bodies listed in Part I.
The inclusion of the Forestry Commissioners in Part I, coupled with the amendment in Schedule 11 to the 1967 Act, may help a further stage of devolution. The changes in the Act described on page 73 of the Bill envisage separate regulations for Wales concerning the felling of trees. These cannot be made without the consent to the Assembly and parliamentary consent is done away with in the last two lines on that page. The commissioners' powers to make byelaws are to be restricted in Wales and will not be able to be operated without the consent of the Assembly, and once again Parliament's powers are to be set aside.
In other words, what is contemplated is an entirely different kind of Forestry Commission with members appointed as representatives of regions in addition to, or in place of—we do not know which—the members appointed for their knowledge and experience of the industry. Behind these regional commissioners in Scotland and Wales will be the Assemblies with power to change regulations and byelaws. This set-up cannot be conducive to the formation and execution of a United Kingdom policy for forestry. That is abundantly clear.
Equally, any Welsh or Scottish commissioners, appropriately having the best interests of their own areas at heart, may have an undue influence on policy in the United Kingdom as a whole. As a Welshman, I should be the last to complain about this; but I also have a sense of fairness and if Wales and Scotland are to have regional representation I know that it will not be long before the

various regions of England are asking for representation on that basis.

Mr. Dalyell: How will they have any sort of influence? Presumably, the three sets of commissioners will be appointed by three different bodies. The Welsh Assembly will appoint the Welch commissioners, the Scottish Assembly will appoint the Scottish commissioners and the British Parliament will appoint the English commissioners. Surely, therefore, they are atomised, and this is part of the whole argument.

Mr. Roberts: We are talking about a permissive power. I do not have the hon. Gentleman's imagination. This could work out in a variety of ways, but it is quite possible that it could work out in the way he has suggested. I emphasise that the requirements of the 1967 Act are specific and I cannot see how the requirements of the Wales and Scotland Bills, which provide for a different sort of commissioner—a regional representative—are consonant. The procedure is totally objectionable because of the drastic change of policy that can be brought about simply by order.
Another subject that has been extensively discussed in this debate is the Welsh Water Authority. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) has a later amendment on this subject. He is not the only hon. Member concerned about the authority being included in the schedule. The authority itself is concerned at the proposal. So, too, are the Welsh local authorities which appoint most of the members of the authority. They are very concerned about the permissive powers given to Ministers to authorise the appointment of additional members.
7.30 p.m.
The exercise of this power could, in the case of the Welsh National Water Development Authority, overturn the predominance of local authority appointees if the Minister so wished. At present there are 35 members of the WNWDA—20 nominated by the local authorities and 15 by Ministers. The Secretary of State has transferred his powers of appointment to the Assembly, under Schedule 2, and those powers are described in Section 3(10) of the Water Act 1973, now to be amended according to paragraph 39 of Schedule 11 to the Bill.
The constitution of the WNWDA is thus liable to change. Five of its members are to represent English local authorities on the Welsh borders. No committee of the Assembly can make an order varying the constitution, but there is no suggestion that the Assembly itself may not do so. That is something that the Committee must bear in mind.
When the constitution of the Severn-Trent Water Authority is described, the proposed amendment to the 1973 Act specifically states—I quote from paragraph 33 of Schedule 11, on page 77 of the Bill—
orders … shall be so framed that the total number of members appointed by the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Welsh Assembly is less than the number of those appointed by local authorities.
There is no similar provision proposed for the WNWDA, and one suspects that the intention is to pack it with Assembly nominees rather than local authority representatives.
Thus the democratic principle inherent in the present system of appointments to the WNWDA, the same principle that underlies the composition of English authorities, looks as though it is to be set aside so that instead of a body largely nominated by the local authorities we shall have a body predominantly nominated by the Assembly.
There is a real difference in that the local authority nomination system allows for a better and fairer geographical distribution of representation than, I suspect, the Assembly system will allow. We certainly need clarification of the Government's intentions in this area of devolution.
The Government are clearly and rightly concerned about the water situation in Wales and the possible misuse of powers by the Assembly. Why else should the Government write into the Bill such extensive powers of intervention on the part of the Secretary of State? They form a major part of Schedule 8—which again, alas, we are unlikely to debate before 9 p.m. this evening. The WNWDA has been reassured by the Government and told that it does not fall under Clause 62(1) and that there is, therefore, little likelihood of its functions being assumed by the Assembly. This has been confirmed by the Written Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne

(Mr. Gow) on 16th March. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if the WNWDA falls under Schedule 7 and Clause 61, with its curious powers to
modify or exclude any provision of this Act
and to appoint additional members, then a situation could develop in which the WNWDA fell into the category of bodies whose functions could be assumed.
In any case, Clause 62 lends itself to more than one interpretation, as we shall see if we reach it. So the assurance given to the WNWDA does not seem to be a secure assurance at all.
The reconstitution of the WNWDA so that responsibility may be devolved to the Assembly again highlights the difficulty of safeguarding the British national interest, which is clearly involved since Welsh water is supplied to major English cities. The Government have done their best, I think, to protect that interest by imposing duties upon the Assembly and by giving the Secretary of State these powers of intervention. But these measures quiver with uncertainty as to the eventual result.
Then there is the geographical split of power on England—Wales lines, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) referred. This split may result in different practices being followed within the authority's own area as a result of the independent exercise of powers by the relevant English Minister in the English sector of the authority's area and by the Assembly in the Welsh sector of the authority's area. The position has been summed up as follows by the WNWDA, but it is really almost a comical summing up because it shows the utter folly of this split of powers. I shall certainly not go through all of what the authority says. However, it begins by saying:
The independent exercise of these powers could inter alia lead, under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961, to one half of, say, the Dee Estuary being controlled waters and the remainder uncontrolled, and the Welsh and English parts of the authority's area having different forms and content of effluent registers and consents to discharge, and different policies for the determination of appeals against consent conditions.
The authority goes on to talk of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and, again, about the possible effect of a split. Similarly, it talks of the Water Act 1945,


the Water Resources Act 1963 and so on. Of the Water Resources Act 1963, the authority says:
It could lead to the impossible position of there being two different determinations of the minimum acceptable flow at the same location, where the national boundary follows the mid-line of the river, to two different policies on Section 60 appeals, and to two different sets of directions for exercise of authority discretion to reduce charges for certain abstractions.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is not the hon. Gentleman really dealing with this matter and the boundaries on the Dee and so on as if they were the boundaries between Siberia, Russia and China? Does he not think that the same type of co-operation can be achieved after devolution as exists now between the various local authorities along the border?

Mr. Roberts: I shall be coming to that point. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has heard a great deal of the debate on the clause, but perhaps he has not heard all of it. Certainly it seemed to me that there was some confusion, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the boundary of the WNWDA does not coincide with the national boundaries of England and Wales. Therefore, there is this overlap with regard to powers. To suggest a split along the lines proposed in the Bill gives rise to these possible situations, as the WNWDA has pointed out to us.
The WNWDA goes on to talk about the effect of the split of powers on the Land Drainage Act 1976, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, and so on. But what the authority says is what the right hon. Gentleman has just suggested, namely, that there should be consultation. I assure hon. Members that, if they read this document from the authority, they will see what a reductio ad absurdum devolution is in the context of the WNWDA.
If the Government are determined to go ahead, the Welsh National Development Water Authority's advice to include provisions to ensure consultation is certainly valid and the least that should be done to try to prevent future conflict. That there will be conflict we can be pretty certain. The Government are also clearly fearful of it, but determined to proceed in the fond belief that everything

will turn out right in the end. Frankly, I do not share their optimism.

Mr. Dalyell: I have one observation to make and two questions to ask.
I think that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, who supports the Bill, ought to pay some attention to what the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) and many other hon. Members have been saying in recent days. I wonder whether we have underestimated to some extent the effect of the geographical pressures that we are building into these bodies for the first time. The truth is that never before in organisations such as the British Waterways Board has there been a temptation to fight for one's own corner. From now on people will fight for their own geographical corner rather than take an overall view.
That is not how the British Waterways Board has worked. I have had a great deal to do with that body for constituency reasons. On the whole, it takes an overall view. Now it will be very different. The hon. Member for Conway was right to point out that the inevitable result of setting up this kind of arrangement will be that the various regions of England, far more than ever before, will fight for their own corner. If this is what we want, well and good, but I do not think that it will lead to efficiency in the management of the waterways.
I have two questions. First, what is the extra cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer of this division of responsibility for waterways in Scotland and in Wales by setting up an organisation in Wales to look after, as we heard from the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), about 80 miles of waterways? My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must surely know the extra cost that is envisaged for this new arrangement.
Sir George Sharp, the chairman of the Labour-controlled Fife local authority and a heavyweight of the Labour Party in local government, described the Scotland Bill publicly in The Sunday Times as "useless, impractical and crazy". He knows something about these matters


That was the opinion of a most experienced Labour local authority heavyweight in Scotland about the Scotland Bill at the weekend. Therefore, I ask: what is the extra cost of the new arrangement?
The second question is purely factual, and perhaps I should know the answer. Where, under this scheme, are forestry policies to be made in relation to Wales? Are they to be made in Cardiff or are they still to be made in Edinburgh? What is the role of Edinburgh in relation to forestry in Wales? Who appoints the Forestry Commissioners responsible for Scotland, for Wales and, indeed, for England? I do not think that I do my hon. Friend the Minister of State an injustice, but I thought that in an interjection he said "But it does not work like that." I stand open to all kinds of corrections, but I merely ask the factual question: who appoints the Forestry Commissioners who will in future be responsible for Welsh forests, for Scottish forests and for English forests? For example, to what extent will forestry in Wales be in any way connected with decision-making at the Forestry Commission's headquarters currently in Edinburgh?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: One of the arguments for empire is that it is always possible from the centre to take an overall view. The argument of the centralists has always been that the more centralised the power is, the easier it is to take an overall view.
Where does the logic of that argument lead us? It would lead us to the argument that there is no need for any kind of subordinate government or legislative power at all, because everything is best done from the centre. I totally reject that argument.
I have been provoked to make this contribution because we have had the most exaggerated criticisms of this clause and its provisions. While the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) was on his feet, I went into the "No" Lobby and looked at the powers of the Secretaries of State under Acts passed by the Conservative Government, namely, the Local Government Act 1972, the Water Act 1973 and the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 to see what provisions were reserved to the respective

Secretaries of State to make new pro visions as to certain bodies and so on. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at those Acts. The criticism made by the Conservative Opposition of Clause 61—that it reserves power to the Secretary of State which could be misused—could be made of each of those Acts. We have always in modern times reserved powers to Secretaries of State. In each of the Acts that I have mentioned, such powers could in theory be misused.
The Opposition, in order to try to frighten the people of Wales about this matter, are suggesting that these particular powers actually will be misused. They did not make that sugegstion on the Local Government Act, on the Water Act or anything of that kind.
The truth is that while the Bill has been going through Committee we have had a constant repetition of Second Reading arguments. It is utter hyprocrisy for the Opposition to say that the guillotine has made it impossible to have detailed consideration of the Bill. When there is an opportunity for detailed consideration of the Bill, they resort nevertheless to all the arguments that they used on Second Reading. As those who have taken an interest in this matter know, we have heard a continued campaign against the Bill and all its provisions. There has been a total disregard, by and large, of the specific provisions in the Bill. There has been no real attempt to improve the Bill, but simply an attempt to kill it. That is what the debate has been about. I am convinced that, as a matter of procedure, if we are to have a careful and detailed consideration of a Bill, it is better that it should go to a Committee upstairs than that it be left to a Committee on the Floor of the House.

Sir A. Meyer: I shall not conceal from the hon. and learned Gentleman that many Opposition Members are opposed to devolution altogether. The worry that we express is not that the Assembly is given too great powers but that we are building into the Bill an invitation to the Assembly to seek to increase its powers. That is what makes this legislation different from anything previously. We have an elected body which has an open invitation to try to put pressure on the Minister to concede greater powers. That is what concerns us.

Mr. Hooson: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. In modern legislation many reserve powers are generally left with Ministers and there is therefore theoretically enormous scope for misuse. In fact, however, Ministers generally dare not misuse these powers because this country's democratic base depends not only on Acts of Parliament but on constitutional conventions. The country could not be run democratically were it not for the constitutional conventions which govern our behaviour. No doubt, they will develop in any relationship between the House of Commons and the Welsh Assembly and between the Secretaries of State and the Welsh Assembly. It is on that basis that civilised democratic government depends. The House of Commons must naturally be careful to see that it does not give to a Minister excessive power or power which could be exercised in a way for which he could not be called to account.
The truth is that we have ways and means of calling any Minister to account if he oversteps the mark. It seems to me that there is a campaign to put exaggerated fears into the mind of the Welsh electorate. I can understand people who are against devolution in principle. So be it. If they are against it, they are against it. But hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are doing an ill service to Wales by grossly exaggerating the dangers of this Bill.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) might be right to say that some Opposition spokesmen have been prone to exaggerate their fears. But he is wrong in his description of the powers in the clause and the powers which existed before in Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will consider this aspect. After all, the Secretaries of State are Ministers in a Government for the whole of the United Kingdom. The pressures on them are not merely to look after the interests of Scotland and Wales but they must look after the whole of the United Kingdom.
The pressures that might obtain in the Assemblies will be of a different order. Their horizon will probably end at their responsibilities for Scotland and Wales.

They will not have this larger vision of the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why it is natural that some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed these fears, particularly when discussing the transfer of United Kingdom services.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Member accepts that people's minds work on different levels. A man can be a good community councillor and yet be a tremendously good European. He can be interested in the Common Market. He can take a broad national view of British politics and yet be a devoted county councillor, always fighting for his patch in the county council. Exactly the same will happen in the Welsh Assembly. It almost certainly will happen.

Sir R. Gower: That might well be the case. But the water issue is not easily kept within the territories of Scotland or Wales. For that reason hon. Members have been somewhat apprehensive that this clause contains unusual powers for possible extension and change after the Bill has been enacted.
It was natural that hon. Members should also be dissatisfied with the degree of protection in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is wrong in his assessment. In expressing these fears we have not exaggerated. The way in which the clause is drafted is open to serious criticism. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will think again.

Mr. Alec Jones: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that much of the debate on the clause revealed a basic hostility to the concept of devolution. It is true that hon. Members went somewhat further since in many contributions suspicions were cast on the motives of a Welsh Assembly and on the ability of an Assembly to do the job properly. It seemed to me to be a permanent search for conflict, looking down every manhole—or up every manhole, according to the direction in which one wished to go.
We are dealing with public bodies which operate in Wales across a wide range of functions. These bodies have responsibilities which affect the day-to-day lives of Welsh people. It is right that when we are transferring functions to an elected Welsh Assembly these bodies should


somehow be made accountable to that Assembly for their actions in Wales. That is what the clause and the schedule seek to do.
The complication is there because these bodies exist either on a Great Britain basis or on an England and Wales basis. To suggest that this grants draconian powers to the Secretary of State is a nonsense. The powers are limited because they apply only to subsection (2).
My hon. Friend intimated earlier that having taken into account some of the criticism we were prepared to agree to accept Amendment No. 294 so that the statutory instrument made under Clause 61 will be subject to affirmative resolution. That means that these "draconian" orders are now to be subjected to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. To describe that in the way in which hon. Members described it is a form of exaggeration.
The debate has focused attention on two bodies—the Forestry Commission and the water authorities. Even if one accepted the case against devolution or that one could have a form of devolution, one cannot contemplate any devolution without devolving responsibilities for water. That is not on. Water is far too sensitive an issue in Wales to contemplate devolution without granting powers over it to an elected Welsh Assembly. We have sought to devise a machinery of Government which will make the Assembly responsibile for water in Wales and, at the same time, graft on essential safeguards so that the England—Wales aspect is protected. I believe that it is protected. If we had time to discuss Clause 65 we would see the safeguards in that clause and in Schedule 8.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does the Minister accept the argument that has been made to us by the Welsh Water Authority that there is a need for some kind of consultative process to ensure that a clash about the use of powers between the Secretary of State and the Assembly does not occur?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member returns to the suggestion that the Assembly would be so dull as to try to act without any form of consultation. There will be many issues with which the Assembly will have to deal, apart from water, over which there will have to be consultations,

whether it likes it or not. The whole nature of modern Government, whether it is exercised in the House of Commons or in a Welsh Assembly, depends to a considerable extent on consultation. As a Minister at the Welsh Office I spend an enormous amount of time consulting. Hon. Members should not ask me to find that duty to consult in a particular case in statute. Any responsible Minister or body—and I believe that the Assembly will be a responsible body—will have to consult and will consult when the situation demands.
Hon. Members have referred to the Forestry Commission. There is a relationship between agriculture and forestry. However, we are convinced that it is right to devolve forestry in Wales while at the same time reserving for the Government and for Parliament those aspects for which a single policy is essential for the whole of Great Britain. What are the essential aspects that we are reserving? First, we are reserving the tax system which is of fundamental importance to the private sector of the forestry industry. We shall be reserving plant health matters, an essential advisory service, and we are also reserving the apparatus of a single Forestry Commission serving the whole of Britain with a common staff structure and pay scale.
8.0 p.m.
We were asked about the appointment of forestry commissioners. The procedure will remain unchanged. The appointments will be made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, as happens now. Policy will be decided by the commissioners subject to directives, and those directives will be given to the commission either by the Ministry of Agriculture in England or by the respective Assembly in Scotland or Wales.
We must see these directives in perspective. They are now extremely rare. Instead of their being issued at the drop of the hat, the arrangements are satisfied through the normal proceses of consultation.

Mr. Benyon: In that case why are the forestry commissioners listed in Part I of Schedule 7 when each of the powers the hon. Member has mentioned are contained in Clause 61(3)?

Mr. Jones: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's point. The commission is listed in Part I of Schedule 7 because it is one of those bodies—the others include the Housing Corporation, the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh National Water Development Authority—the functions of which we believe should be transferred to the Assembly at the earliest possible moment. Those in Part II can tolerate some delay, and the Secretary of State would make an order adjusting the arrrangements between these bodies only after receiving a request from the Assembly itself. This is a central concept of devolution, which is why Part I provisions would not need a request from the Assembly.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Minister said that appointments to the Forestry Commission would continue to be made by Her Majesty the Queen. Did he mean by that that Clause 61(3)(b) providing for an order requiring or authorising the appointment of additional members does not apply or is unlikely to apply to the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Jones: I shall take another look at the point the hon. Member is making, but my understanding is that if an order were made requiring the appointment of additional forestry commissioners, it would still be made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.
In Clause 61 and Schedule 7 we have established a fair division which will make these bodies responsible, first, to the Assembly for their functions in Wales and, secondly, to central Government for their functions in the rest of the United Kingdom. Given the complications, it is not easy to try to devise a system which can deal with bodies operating on this basis.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. I hope that any hon. Member who thinks that he will become a Member of the Welsh Assembly is under no illusion but that on the question of forestry he is simply a member of a powerless advisory body. I do not know whether that satisfies hon. Members. I see the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) shaking his head. However, the Minister has news for him because this

is Edinburgh government. The people who appoint the commissioners will clearly have absolute authority. It will be a unitary Forestry Commission, but that was the understanding of some of those who work for the commission. We have heard a very interesting answer from the Minister. The Welsh Assembly is only an advisory body. On forestry the Welsh Assembly is an advisory body only.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is reading a lot more into my reply than was intended. I was dealing with the appointment of the commissioners and I said that policy would be decided by the commissioners subject to directives of the Welsh Assembly, and so on. One has to bear in mind that it will be a matter for the Assembly to decide how much land should be devoted to forestry in Wales, and it will be up to the Assembly to balance expenditure on afforestation. These then are considerable powers for the Assembly, but I did not make the suggestion that my hon. Friend seemed to think.

Mr. Dalyell: Those who have the power of appointment will retain the real power, especially if that is combined with Treasury power. What relationship will exist between the Executive of the Welsh Assembly and the forestry commissioners based in Edinburgh where a difference of opinion arises? I do not say "if", because there will certainly be differences of opinion. Who will resolve them? I fear that we are getting into a great muddle on this issue.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is looking for differences. Who resolves the differences now? One cannot imagine that there are never differences under the present set-up over the needs and interests of forestry as between Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. These are now resolved mainly by sensible consultations between sensible people. That is how it will be in the future, except that it will involve different people. Instead of there being Ministers and commissioners, it will involve Members of the Welsh Assembly and commissioners.

Mr. Dalyell: As I understand it at present, these differences are resolved either by the full Cabinet or more likely by a Cabinet sub-committee. That is a


united body in the sense that its members are of the same Government. The situation will be wholly different under the new set-up. The bodies will be different and they may represent different political parties. The same problems of conflict that we have discussed many times before in the last 39 days of debate are present here, too, and that is a fact of life. This is a complexity which is unlikely to be resolved. This is not only a question of opening manholes or of saying that these differences will be resolved by reasonable men. If we were all reasonable men there would be no need for the Bill in the first place, but the situation is not like that. There are great conflicts. There will be conflicts about water. The Minister says that that is such emotive subject that it is unthinkable that the powers over it should not go to the Welsh Assembly. In such circumstances the conflicts are built in, and we do no service to ourselves in pretending that these conflicts do not exist.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister has been very good in answering the question put to him, but can he not conceivably see any difference between a state of affairs in which these matters are settled, to use his own words, by sensible people acting in a sensible way, who are predominantly members of the same administration and therefore on good terms with each other, and a new situation in which the Assembly may be hostile to the administration here? Can he not see any difference in those two situations?

Mr. Jones: Let us consider some of these bodies. I doubt whether one could say that the Dental Estimates Board will be hostile to a Labour or a Conservative Government. I cannot see a great deal of political contact involved with the Horse Race Totalisator Board. There is the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. There is a whole range of bodies. I think there are about 24 of such bodies in Part II. Those are advisory bodies who will tender the same technical and professional advice to a Welsh Assembly as they now tender to a Government.
The bodies in Part I are probably causing a little more controversy. The water authorities seem to be the hot dogs. The water authorities have existed for a number of years and often have on them a majority of members who hold a political

view that is very different from that of the central Government, and it has not caused the great upheaval which the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) seems to suggest.

Sir R. Gower: I did not mean that. I meant if the body is subject to a direction from an Assembly which is hostile to the existing Government here.

Mr. Jones: The point that I was making about the 24 bodies in Part II was as to the hostile directive that one gives to the Gaming Board for Great Britain. I do not think that is on. Basically we are talking of the water authority. The Welsh Assembly will be responsible for drawing up a Welsh water policy which will have to conform, by this very statute, to the England and Wales water policy. I would have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable and sensible provision.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall make one observation. Whatever the Welsh situation, I am absolutely clear that it was news to a great many people in Scotland that the forestry commissioners are to be appointed in relation to Scottish forests by the British Government. That is something which we still will have to go into. Whatever the actual fact of the situation, the impression is abroad that Scottish forestry will be under a Scottish Assembly—almost full stop.

Sir R. Gower: They are all Scotsmen, anyway.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: If that is the case we have problems about the English forests. I asked a factual question, and I hope that my hon. Friend has the answer. What is the extra cost of creating a Welsh waterways authority? There must be some estimate because we know that in everything that the Government do there is a cost-price tag attached to it. It may be very small, for all I know, but a new organisation which has to run 80 miles of waterways, or whatever it is, will presumably require extra costs. As my hon. Friend is searching for an answer, I shall draw his attention to the British Waterways Board's view:
The Welsh waterway system which is much smaller is unlikely to be sustained and developed to the full if left dependent on Welsh resources alone. For example, most of those using the Llangollen Canal live in England as do most of those interested in the Montgomery


Canal restoration. The Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal has more local use, but not the extent that local resources are likely to be adequate to maintain it nor—in normal circumstances—to meet the existing need for considerable repair.
If these things are to be done on a Welsh basis, it will require a separate organisation. In my capacity as one who is concerned, as are my hon. Friends, about costs to the United Kingdom taxpayer, I ask what is the Government estimate for creating a new organisation. I see that my question seems to send the Under-Secretary to sleep. I am waiting for an answer.
We are for ever being chided with making Second Reading speeches. I ask a very reasonable, factual question. What is the estimated cost of this new organisation for waterways? The answer is a lemon, as in so many other things. Nobody knows.

The Chairman: It is no good looking at the Chair, because the Chair knows nothing about it.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), the Government Whip, knows the answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office knows. He is informative on every other subject. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) can answer my question. Finally, I turn to the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. Alec Jones: I had not intended rising to speak in the debate again, but I do so because on several occasions while we have been going through Committee my hon. Friend has asked questions about costs and has been told that the total figures of costs are those in the Financial Memorandum. I am not able to split each cost down to match the wording of every line in any particular clause, but although my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian says that he has not heard, we have given him the details. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelt out some of the information in a major debate on the subject. It is not the case that the answers have not been given, but somebody has not been listening.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not good enough for my hon. Friend to say that I am not

listening. I have been rooted and listening to every word.

Mr. Jones: I was sleeping a minute ago, according to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not an unreasonable question to ask. We are discussing the important subject of Welsh water. We are setting up a new Welsh waterways authority. What is the rough cost of it? If I have missed the answer, perhaps I could be reminded, if I am stupid or have not heard or have been temporarily absent for half a minute. The least that the Government Front Bench can do is to remind me. I know that it is irritating for my hon. Friends, but it is a legitimate question. I can be silenced in a moment by being given a figure. I am not filibustering. I want to get on to the next business, as does the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 5th April.]

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Sir Myer. We have had a list of the provisional selection of amendments for today and tomorrow. My question relates to the selection of those amendments to be debated after 5 p.m. tomorrow.
In the course of the Scotland Bill a decision was taken by the House about inserting a minimum requirement into the referendum. This was endorsed by the House on a subsequent occasion, and the matter has gone to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has said that the Government accept the amendment.
The danger in the discussions that take place in this Committee is that, if Amendment No. 325 on Clause 83 is not reached, we will not have an opportunity to insert a minimum requirement into the referendum for Wales. May we have an indication, through you, Sir Myer, from the Government or from the Business Committee that we shall at least have a decision on this matter, or preferably a debate? This is essential, because the Government are accepting a decision that the House has taken on this matter on a similar Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is referring to Amendment No. 325, which obviously has been selected and which appears on the list. The question of the speed with which we shall deal with the preceding amendments is entirely in the hands of hon. Members. If they decide not to deal with the preceding amendments, no doubt Amendment No. 325 will be reached. The Chair cannot guide or regulate the speed with which hon. Members will deal with amendments. Therefore, I do not see that this is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. In view of the fact that it would be absolutely ludicrous for a 40 per cent. position to exist in the Scotland Bill and not in the Wales Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it is quite right for the Welsh and the Scots people to have the same proposition in front of them and it would be ludicrous if they did not—may I ask whether the Government have indicated that they will bring forward an amendment in line with the will and wishes of the majority of hon. Members expressed on the Scotland Bill? If the House of Commons wishes to change its mind on the Wales Bill, it is perfectly entitled to do so. However, the Government should take account of the expressed will of the House of Commons on the Scotland Bill and bring forward a Government amendment just in case we do not reach the Back-Bench amendment on the list today.

The First Deputy Chairman: Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a confidant of the Government. What they are proposing is beyond my knowledge. It is for the Government to decide; it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Leo Abse: I appreciate the limitations imposed on you, Sir Myer. I know, however, that you will appreciate that nothing will arouse greater indignation in Wales than the notion that, by stealth or conspiracy, a situation has been created by which Parliament cannot express its wishes as it expressed them on the Scotland Bill, to the effect that, unless 40 per cent. of the population of Wales wishes to have devolution, devolution will not occur.
Although you have said that it is up to the Committee, if it wishes, not to speak at length on all the amendments which have been tabled, we know that, given a proliferation of amendments on minutiae tabled by Plaid Cymru, and given the lack of initiative on the part of the Government in bringing a business motion before the Committee, it is apparent to all that a conspiracy is afoot which is an abuse of the Committee. This prevents the will of the Committee from being expressed, and it will have the effect that, using the weapon of boredom, a small fanatical minority will be able to impose its view on the Welsh people.
I am asking you, Sir Myer, to protect the Committee from this abuse, and it is within the Government's hands to refute the charge that they are privy to what is taking place. If they wish to refute that charge, it is open to them to table a business motion and to put it before the Committee.
Now that the Chief Whip is present, I would ask you, Sir Myer, in order to protect the business of the Committee, to invite my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee what steps he is taking to make certain, not merely that there should be a debate—because that is not enough—but that there should be an open debate on the subject of the 40 per cent. The Government should give their reasons for the present situation and should explain why so many fears are being expressed on this topic. They should explain why we are being denied the opportunity of being able to say, on behalf of the Welsh people, that in no circumstances will a small persistent minority bore Wales to death. We should not allow a small group of people in Wales to trick the Principality into devolution.

The First Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members are fully aware that the Chair can protect the Committee only within the ambit of the Standing Orders. Nothing is being done here in the provisional selection of amendments which has departed from what has been laid down by Parliament. Therefore, to put the matter mildly, it is beyond my understanding to allege that there has been a conspiracy.
It is quite conceivable that hon. Members may decide to ignore the other amendments and simply go on to Amendment No. 325. I do not know what hon. Members will do; it is for them to decide. But there may have been some argument if it had been said that Amendment No. 325 was not included. It is on the Notice Paper according to the decision by the Business Committee, and that is where it will stay so far as the Chair is concerned.

Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I appreciate that you are in considerable difficulty—

The First Deputy Chairman: I am not in any difficulty.

Sir R. Gower: Perhaps I worded that badly.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is hon. Members who seem to be in difficulty—or who are acting as though they are.

4.45 p.m.

Sir R. Gower: The Committee is certainly in great difficulty. Whatever the merits of the 40 per cent. argument, I believe that the two Bills, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, are of great concern to the United Kingdom as a whole. I respectfully submit that it would be most unwise of Parliament to have a different basis of decision in the case of Scotland from that of Wales. On that score I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
Is it not possible for the Government now to take the opportunity to give an assurance that, at some stage before this point is reached, they will bring forward proposals to enable the Committee to examine the matter objectively?

Mr. Ian Gow: May I raise a rather different point of order, Sir Myer? The document that is before the Committee is headed by you, Sir Myer, "Provisional selection of amendments". That means that before tomorrow you will have the power to alter the selection in the light of representations which may be made to you. In view of the crucial importance of Amendment No. 325 and the fact that your provisional selection shows that there are 17 amendments which come before even the group of amendments of which No. 325 is one, may I submit that you should reconsider your provisional selection to take account of the submissions which have been made to you from both sides of the Committee?
Secondly, may I ask that in reconsidering your provisional selection for tomorrow you should afford to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, the Patronage Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales, or to one of them, the opportunity of submitting to you reasons why you should not deviate from your provisional selection of amendments?
Finally, may I ask about a procedural point. If you, Sir Myer, decide to leave the provisional selection for tomorrow as it is today, is it possible as a matter of


procedure for hon. Members, having heard the Government Front Bench and having listened to other hon. Members, even supposing that we did not reach in debate Amendment No. 325, to vote on that amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman is correct in believing that the Committee feels strongly about this matter, there is a simple way round the situation. They should get the agreement of the Committee not to discuss any amendment until we reach Amendment No. 325. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of a departure in dropping amendments which have already been selected. The amendments which have been selected are strictly in order and are as important and as vital to those who have tabled them as is Amendment No. 325. It is a novel idea, and certainly one that would never be accepted by the Chair, to suggest that we should drop the amendments that precede Amendment No. 325 in order to allow Amendment No. 325 to be dealt with.

Mr. Francis Pym: I rise in the hope that the Government will feel able to assist the Committee at this stage. We do not want to take any more time than we have to on this matter because we are again beginning this debate an hour late on a timetable day.
We know that the Government have not tabled an amendment of their own dealing with the referendum, whereas they did not seek to defend Clause 1 or Clause 39, and they have tabled their own amendment in regard to the separation of any referendum, if it is held, from a General Election. But they are entitled under the timetable motion, if they so wish after the guillotine has fallen, to move an amendment that now stands in the name of any hon. Member. I am certain that the Government would like to debate Amendment No. 325, as would the whole Committee.
The Government have acknowledged the desirability of making the provisions of the Wales Bill similar to those in the Scotland Bill; otherwise they would not have tabled some of the amendments which they tabled to the Scotland Bill in their own name and would have sought to defend Clauses 1 and 39. I ask the

Government to make a statement so that we can make progress now. I ask them to say that in the unhappy event that Amendment No. 325 is not reached tomorrow evening, they will give an undertaking to move Amendment No. 325 so that the Committee may vote on it.

The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it would be in order for the Government to move, after the guillotine has fallen, Amendment No. 325. But whether they will take that course is beyond my knowledge. There seems to be no response from the Government Front Bench, so far as I can see. We do not want to spend the whole of our time dealing with points of order and still not reach Amendment No. 325.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. It was not possible for me to rise earlier as you were on your feet answering the point of order made previously. I recognise the nature of the concern that is being expressed. I undertake that the Government will consider carefully the points that have been made.

The First Deputy Chairman: I am sure that hon. Members will be prepared to accept that undertaking. They have the whole day to consider the matter. They have heard all the points of order. Fortunately, I shall not be in the Chair tomorrow when these points of order are further raised.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I assure you and the whole Committee that there has been no conspiracy between the Plaid Cymru Bench and the Government Bench or, as far as I am aware, between other Benches. Amendments have been tabled which, as you rightly said, Sir Myer, are in order. Of the amendments that have been selected there are only six in the names of Plaid Cymru Members. There is no intention on our part to delay debate or, if we could, to spin out debate on irrelevancies.
The amendments raise important matters of principle relating to the powers of the Assembly and the Secretary of State. There is the basic issue of the


dating of the Assembly and the holding of a referendum.
As for the argument raised by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse), we as a party are always anxious for parity with Scotland in all matters. However, I see no justification in arguing that because the 40 per cent. clause has been inserted in the Scotland Bill it should go into the Wales Bill. The proposals in the Scotland Bill are for legislative powers to go to the Scottish Assembly whereas the Welsh proposals are for an executive Assembly. In that sense the Bills are essentially different. It does not follow that because a certain amendment of ballot-rigging effect was inserted in the one referendum it should be inserted in another.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the time that we have already spent on these points of order. They have, of course, served a useful purpose. The Minister of State has been present and he has promised to consider the whole situation. Surely, it would be better to leave these points of order and to proceed with the rest of the business.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would it be possible, Sir Myer, for my selfish benefit, to publish with the amendments that have been selected the times when you will be in the Chair?

The First Deputy Chairman: I shall oblige the hon. Gentleman with that information on consideration of payment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee, Sir Myer, and I appreciate that the Minister has given an undertaking to consider providing the opportunity of having a debate and vote on the issue. However, when shall we be informed of the Government's decision? It would be wrong for us to have only a last-minute indication. We should be given as early an indication as possible—at least early tomorrow. Surely, that is a reasonable request.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I, too, do not wish to delay the Committee, Sir Myer, but I must draw your attention to the danger of proceeding each day in

this way when dealing with points of order, which presents a one-sided view. I wish to make it clear that not everyone on the Labour Benches shares the view that it is desirable to have a vote on the amendment without a debate. In my view, the Bill differs significantly from the Scotland Bill and does not have the same constitutional implications.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We shall not have a debate on that issue.

Schedule 7

PUBLIC BODIES

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 64, leave out lines 5 and 6.—[Mr. Alec Jones.]

Mr. Benyon: I beg to move Amendment No. 92. in page 64, leave out lines 7 and 8.
I must confess that after the latest intervention of the Minister, I am more confused than I was when we started. I start from the premise that I read the Forestry Act 1967, and where the Minister comes into the matter I insert "the Assembly" The question that I sought to ask the Minister during his speech related to the commissioners, with whom the amendment was concerned. If the amendment were to be passed it would not remove forestry from a devolved area. It would simply restrict the power of the Minister to alter the existing situation as regards the commissioners. Under Clause 61(3), among the powers proposed for the Minister is
…requiring or authorising the appointment of additional members".
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has sought an answer on this. Does that mean that there is no devolved power for the number of commissioners


to be varied? Is that what the Minister meant in an earlier debate?
I do not want to rehearse the forestry arguments, but I would repeat one point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). Although it is reasonable to talk of the powers vested in a Minister in relation to local government Acts, it is not the same when one is dealing with an industry. The hon. Member for Dagenham rightly pointed out that functions in relation to British Leyland. British steel and other nationalised industries are not being devolved. Why devolve in relation to this industry?
Agriculture and forestry interact. The EEC is considering its forestry policy and is about to produce a composite document. It will be crazy if we cannot deal with the two together. I hope that the amendment will elicit some clarification.

Mr. Alec Jones: Most of what I would say in reply to the amendment has been said already on the many occasions when the subject of forestry has cropped up.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) asked whether the Welsh Assembly would have power to change the composition of the Forestry Commission. I would not have framed the question like that, but under Clause 61(3)(b), which provides for an increase in the number of members, that increase could come about only after consultation between the Assembly and the Forestry Commission, and then after my right hon. Friend had made an order which would have to receive the agreement of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Benyon: Then it is true to say that the Assembly's function is purely advisory.

Mr. Jones: Not in the general sense of the word, but the actual appointment of any additional commissioners will be made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.
As I said earlier, I do not deny that there is a strong link between agriculture and forestry. The devolution of forestry matters recognises that the case for a vigorous forestry policy rests at least as much on social and environmental considerations, for which the Assembly will be primarily responsible, as on economic

factors. The main links are between forestry and other devolved activities which are important to the economy of rural Wales—the countryside, tourism, and the functions of the Development Board for Rural Wales. Forestry has closer links with those matters than with agriculture. That is why we feel that we were right to devolve forestry, with safeguards.

Mr. Dalyell: In the past half hour, we have seen how much, in this case as in so many others, there is of window dressing, of the trappings without the substance. That is highly dangerous. Within weeks of election, the Assemblies will tumble to how little they can do. The Welsh Assembly will be simply advisory. The real powers in this matter remain with the Treasury and the Forestry Commission. The Assembly will apparently be given power over the Welsh matters, yet at the first sign of conflict it will be defeated. That will just lead to discontent and will make the situation unsatisfactory. This window dressing is politically dangerous.

Mr. Jones: I do not want to keep repeating myself, but it is just not true that the Assembly will have the trappings and not the power when dealing with forestry. It will finance forestry activities in Wales. The old saying is "He who pays the piper calls the tune." That means that the Assembly will have some powers—and, I think, far more considerable powers than has been suggested.

Mr. Benyon: We have now jumped to another point, and an important one. Although, under Clause 4, the Assembly will give grants for forestry, surely the Forestry Commission itself will still be financed direct by the Exchequer, even though its activities may take place in Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: This is where we are in a difficulty of having our cake and eating it. Now my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says "But, of course, the Assembly has great power because it is in charge of finance." If this is meaningful, we come back to another matter. What happens then to the coherent strategy and the coherent policy of the Forestry Commission? If we say "Ah, but the Assembly has a final say in relation to finance, the Assembly pays the piper and calls


the financial tune", we cannot talk about the coherence of these bodies, be it the Forestry Commission or the British Waterways Board. Once again, this is a question of having one's cake and eating it. It is one thing or the other. One cannot have it both ways.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 93, in page 64, leave out lines 11 and 12.—[Mr. Parker.]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I beg to move Amendment No. 261, in page 64, leave out lines 15 and 16.

The Chairman: With this we are to take the following Amendments:
No. 257, in page 25, line 7, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the Welsh National Water Development Authority".
No. 258, in page 27, line 11, leave out "The" and insert:
if it appears to him to be expedient for the purpose of securing a more efficient supply of water, the".
No. 259, in page 27, line 16, leave out from "but" to end of line 18 and insert:
any such order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure".

Mr. Ellis: In his speech on the Question, That Clause 61 stand part, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) referred to the four amendments in my name, and seemed to do so with some approval, as if he assumed that they were on the Notice Paper because of a profound disagreement that I have with the devolution proposals in respect of water. I hasten to disabuse him of that notion. The amendments are on the Notice Paper for a comparatively narrow purpose—to clarify the situation in respect of a statutory water company which has its registered office in Wrexham in my constituency, the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company.
I have been in contact with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for about 12 months about this subject, going back to the original Scotland and Wales Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the great deal of trouble he has taken in trying to explain to me by letter the precise position of the statutory water company consequent upon the passing

of this Bill. But, as a number of hon. Members have said during the debate today, the Bill is very complex and it is difficult for people such as I who are not highly skilled in these matters to understand clearly what the position would be. Therefore, I tabled the amendments as probing amendments to see whether I could be enlightened even further than I have been so far.
My hon. Friend has tried to reassure me by letter. I should like that reassurance to go a little further if possible, and be told that the water company will remain as a separate water company. It is the only statutory water company in Wales coming within the ambit of this legislation. It acts as an agent for the Welsh National Water Development Authority. I hope that I shall receive the reassurances I seek. If I have them, I shall be very happy, with the Committee's permission, to withdraw the amendment.
There are a number of reasons why I want to see the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company remain a separate statutory water company and be quite free of any danger of being incorporated by the action of the Welsh Assembly into the Welsh National Water Development Authority or any other body. It should remain separate as the only separate water company in Wales in the authority's region.
My reasons have nothing to do with any criticism that I would make of the authority. On the contrary, I am full of praise for it. I should like to mention in passing that now that its new chairman, Mr. Haydn Rees, following the unfortunate death of his predecessor, is beginning to get to grips with the problems of the water industry in Wales, one senses the feel of purposeful steering beginning to develop in that authority. I pay tribute to the chairman and his staff. My anxiety to retain the water company as a separate institution has nothing to do with any criticism of the authority.
The plain fact is that it seems to me important, for many reasons which have nothing to do with devolution, that we should retain a different type of semi-independent water agency within the overall ambit of the authority. The statutory water companies generally have always been very sensitive to public opinion.


They are very close to the public. Water is such an important service. Indeed, for many years people hardly knew that the water companies existed. One simply turned on the tap, the water came, and that was that. They were hardly noticed partly because they were very sensitive.
It is important, for a number of other reasons, that the position of a water company should be clarified. For example, the water company in my area is in the process at the moment of raising £2 million in order to further its technical developments over the next five years It is raising this money on the market and has responsibilities to its creditors, employees and shareholders. It is therefore important, for all these reasons, that the water company should be quite clear exactly what will happen to it over the coming years.
There is another important reason for arguing that it should remain as it now is, as a semi-independent water-supplying service. The statutory water companies as they now exist—and this is the only one in Wales—form an independent unit for water supply within an industry which is for the most part operating on a multifunctional basis. It must be very helpful, therefore, within such an industry to retain at least one water company in order to allow the performance of the industry generally to be measured.
This is a clear example, in microcosm, of the value of a mixed economy. On technical grounds and on quite pragmatic business grounds, it is a very useful thing to have as a criterion by which the efficiencies of the water authority and of the company itself can be measured. It is for these reasons that I want it to continue as it has continued since the reorganisation of water a few years ago.
A number of clauses in the Bill refer to the position of the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh National Water Development Authority, and so on, and to the various changes. I was at one stage a little anxious about Clause 62, and the possibility of changes being made under it. I am very happy that my hon. Friend was able to reassure me that under that clause nothing can happen to the water company by any action of the Welsh Assembly because, as was pointed out, the Welsh Assembly has no powers under the clause to take over the functions which apply to a body save when all the existing ministerial

powers of appointment to it are to be devolved to the Assembly. As was pointed out, paragraph 39 of Schedule 11 provides that one member of the body should be appointed jointly by the Secretary of State and the Minister.

Sir A. Meyer: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, showing himself vigilant in the defence of his constituents' interests, without mentioning that the charges of his local water company in Wrexham are substantially lower than those prevailing elsewhere in Wales. Will he accept that there are occasions on which others of us, who are less attached to the principle of devolution than he is, may be led to uphold the interests of our constituents, even when it leads us to oppose devolution, in exactly the same way as the hon. Gentleman's defence of his constituents is leading him to utter the most impeccable Tory sentiments that I have heard for some time?

Mr. Ellis: It is a question not of making a Tory speech but of looking after a supremely efficient water authority. Many authorities in Wales have been far less efficient than this one It so happens that this one is supremely efficient. I had the great good fortune, during the 1976 drought, to visit the water company and see its various reservoirs There was no shortage of water whatsoever in Wrexham. However, the public was very upset, assuming that the company was negligent in not applying some kind of rationing system. For this reason, the company, towards the end of August or in early September, despite the fact that it had plenty of water, felt obliged to meet its customers' demands and introduce a rationing system. That is a measure of its extreme efficiency.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that his water company, the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company, contributes currently £37,000 towards the equalisation fund, whereas the Welsh water authority is a receiver from that fund to the tune of about £6 million?

Mr. Ellis: I am prepared to accept those figures. But the Welsh National Water Development Authority, which has barely got under way—I referred earlier to its first dynamic chairman—inherited many problems which stem essentially


from private business. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is criticising any shortcomings of the water authority he is criticising the history of the water supply industry—largely private—in the whole of Wales. It is a great tragedy that we always tend to take up some kind of get a serious, considered, objective assessment of a particular problem without all party line on this matter. One cannot the various party points being trotted out, almost by some kind of Pavlovian reflex action.
There is the question, which is quite important, about the procedures under Clause 65 which might have a bearing on the possible future of the water company. Clause 65 deals with water and provides:
For the purposes of section 10 above any power which, by any provision specified in Part I of Schedule 8 to this Act, is conferred on a Minister of the Crown shall be deemed—

(a) so far as it is exercisable in relation to the Welsh National Water Development Authority, to be a power exercisable as regards Wales; and
(b) so far as it is exercisable in relation to the Severn-Trent Water Authority, not to be a power exercisable as regards Wales."

That has the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Assembly into England, since part of the Welsh National Water Development Authority's area is in England, and conversely to exclude part of Wales as part of the Severn-Trent Water Authority.
Clause 65(2) states that:
The Secretary of State may, with respect to any statutory water company (within the meaning of the Water Act 1973) which supplies water to an area most of which is within Wales, by order make provision similar to the provision made by this Act with respect to the Welsh National Water Development Authority but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
But because the company is the only statutory water company supplying water to an area most of which is in Wales, Clause 65(2) can apply only to the Wrexham company, It would, therefore, seem that an order under that subsection, taken in conjunction with Clause 65(1), could provide for a transfer of the company to the Assembly and, incidentally, comprise a clearly identifiable purpose.
I know that there are various protections and consents which appear to be

required in respect of orders affecting the interests of the company. But it is not clear to me exactly how the procedure for an application under Clause 65 would operate in practice. Any order which may at present be applied for under the provisions of the Water Act 1945, or the Water Resources Act 1963, must comply with the procedures laid down, and if the powers in relation to subordinate legislation are insufficient for the purpose the proposals can be implemented only by means of the Bill.
I should like to know exactly what powers would be available to the Secretary of State, or to the Assembly, beyond those already contained in the Water Act or the Water Resources Act. If there are any such powers, what protection will be afforded to the company, its employees, creditors and shareholders, in respect of any application to transfer the undertaking of the company to the Welsh National Water Development Authority?
There has been a great deal of correspondence between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself. He has by letter tried to explain a lot of the procedures.
I shall now finish in order to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of reassuring me on the precise position of the future of the water company under the Bill. I hope that he will be able to reassure me that the Wrexham Water Company will continue to exist as a separate and clearly identifiable water service agency, whether under the Welsh Assembly, if it comes about, or even if it does not come about.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Amendment No. 257 takes us for the first time, with a foothold, into Clause 62. I suspect that, due to the operation of the guillotine, this is the only opportunity that we shall have to make a passing reference to what is a very important clause. It might be described as the "abolition clause" because it enables the Assembly, with the consent only of the Secretary of State, without reference to this place, to take over the powers of and, if it wishes, to abolish a number of very important bodies in Wales. I think that a passing reference to it is in order.
We have here an amendment which seeks to exclude one specific important


body. It happens that Opposition Amendments Nos. 278 and 279, which have been grouped separately, were directed to a very similar argument as that to which the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) addressed his remarks, which was finding out what might be the position of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. The hon. Member took the amendment directed to the Welsh National Water Development Authority and related it to a specific water company and made some passing reference to the position of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. The Opposition's amendments sought to clarify the position.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill indicates that the takeover and abolition powers are to apply to those bodies in which all ministerial appointing powers are transferred to the Assembly. The Opposition's amendments suggested that the position would have been clearer if the clause were redrafted so that it applied only to bodies where the Assembly had power to appoint all the members, which would have identified clearly the Welsh National Water Development Authority. The fact that it is not identified clearly and that the clause is confused is confirmed by the fact that the authority has had to approach the Government to get clarification on this matter and that correspondence has had to pass to throw some light on the position.
The hon. Member for Wrexham is right that the Welsh National Water Development Authority is let out by paragraph 39 of Schedule 11. But this seems to be an obscure and back-door way of doing it, and it is not at all satisfactory. The Opposition would have preferred to see much clearer wording in the clause as it stands. But the simple fact is that this body appears to be let out, whereas a number of important bodies are very much brought into the provisions of the Bill by Clause 62. They include the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, as well as a number of advisory bodies such as the Historic Buildings Council, the Central Advisory Body for Education for Wales and the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales, as well as the area health authorities.
The bodies which can be executed in this way under Clause 62 were listed in a

Written Answer on Thursday 16th Match. Therefore, Amendment No. 257 refers to a very remarkable and important clause. Here we have a number of bodies set up by Parliament after extensive debate which can be removed at the request of the Assembly and only on the say-so of the Secretary of State.
I have not the time to elaborate now and to quote all the remarks which were made at the time, but I have in mind all the remarks by the Under-Secretary and by the Secretary of State when setting up the Welsh Development Agency and these other bodies about the vital importance of this kind of organisation, about the importance of getting the right kind of representatives on it, about the need for specialist skills, and about the need for small, compact and efficient bodies. All these arguments were spelt out to us. Yet the Assembly can simply wipe out the whole thing on the consent of the Secretary of State without reference to Parliament at all. All the undertakings we were given about these bodies—the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales—can be simply wiped out in this way without adequate parliamentary debate.
Therefore, a reference to these bodies and the fact that one particular one among them is exempted is fully justified in the brief time that we have available up to the fall of the guillotine.
It is not clear why the Welsh National Water Development Authoirty should have the rare privilege of being exempt from abolition. Presumably, the complications of dealing on a cross-border basis were too complex. Apparently, the relationships with the English authorities prevented it. This places the board in a privileged position because almost all the other nominated bodies that were set up at the same time by the Government and for which these powerful arguments were adduced by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretaries in debate are subject to summary execution.
This is a matter for considerable concern for Wales, for those bodies and the people who work in them. They cannot be certain that they can continue functioning in the specialist and independent way in which they are functioning. It


is hard to see how many functions could be carried out by elected committees. It is hard to envisage how specialist advice of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales or the Library Advisory Council for Wales could be carried out by an elected committee. It is equally hard to see why the abolition of area health authorities, which is possible under Clause 62, would bring government any closer to the people. Clearly, it would take it further away.
I am glad that in the short time available I have been able to identify the effects of Clause 62, which is an abolition clause, which deliberately contradicts many of the undertakings given by the Ministers in setting up all these bodies. In fact, many of the bodies were set up simultaneously with the drafting and preparation of this Bill.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I assure the hon. Member that the Government are not in breach of any undertaking. I can see why the Conservatives always fight to defend nominated bodies. It is always the way in which they can perpetuate power in Wales, in or out of office. There is no suggestion that we are in breach of any undertaking that has been given. We are seeking to democratise these bodies and it is open to the Assembly to consider the best form of running the bodies, with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Edwards: I had intended to end my speech in time to enable the Minister to reply. However, I have just been provoked into going on.
Let us consider a few of these bodies. We have one defunct council—the Central Advisory Council for Education in Wales—listed in the parliamentary answer to which I have referred. We have three learned bodies and three bodies set up by the Socialists since they came to power—the Land Authority for Wales, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. We also have the Development Corporation which contains six known Socialists out of nine members. We have the Wales Tourist Board which is chaired by Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies, the former Labour Member for Conway who is now prospective Parliamentary Labour candidate for Caerphilly. That is hardly the

stuff from which the underhand perpetuation of Conservative administration is carried out.
The truth is that the nominated bodies about which we are talking in these provisions were set up by the Secretary of State for Wales and are packed with his nominees and party hacks, as are almost all the bodies with which we are dealing.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose—

Mr. Edwards: No, I shall not give way. For the Secretary of State to talk about the Conservative Party perpetuating power through nominated bodies is an insult to the people of Wales and their intelligence.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Edwards: No, I do not intend to give way.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Myer Galpern): If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, that situation must be accepted.

Mr. Edwards: I have no intention of giving way. I gave way earlier to the right hon, and learned Gentleman and I am now replying to the "phoney" and erroneous point he made. The truth is that these bodies have been appointed by him and packed by his nominees.

Mr. Morris: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I am not giving way.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon, and learned Gentleman should not lose his temper at the Dispatch Box. He should not behave in that uncontrollable way when he is faced with the truth of politics in Wales. That truth is well known to the Welsh people. The truth is that the Labour Party, through its party caucus and party nominations, packs the political bodies in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it in order for the Conservative Front Bench spokesman to make a slur on those people by suggesting that they are members of the Labour Party?

The First Deputy Chairman: Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Edwards: The Secretary of State has revealed his hand only too clearly.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Edwards: I have already said that I do not intend to give way to the right hon, and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Morris: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have only a few minutes left before the guillotine falls. Let us get on with it.

Mr. Edwards: I propose to conclude my remarks so that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales may reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. I think that it would be a courtesy to that hon. Gentleman to allow the Minister to do so.
I am delighted to give way to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who always seeks to reply to debates sensibly and reasonably. But I shall not listen to the kind of point that was put by the Secretary of State for Wales about the Conservative Party when what he said was a travesty of the truth—in fact, a reverse of the truth. It is the Labour Party that seeks to dominate the Welsh people through the exercise of party patronage and the appointment of party hacks.

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that I am always sensible and reasonable when replying to debates. I wish that I had a few more minutes in which to speak so that I could show him how sensible and reasonable I can be. I recall that he tried this game in our debates in the Welsh Grand Committee when we discussed the Arts Council. On that occasion his remarks acted like a damp squib. He knew then, as he does now, that what he says is nonsense.
I wish to refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who is concerned about the future existence of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company. It is a technical problem, and when my hon. Friend said that he hoped I could dispel his doubts he flattered me because I have already attempted to answer him in a

long and complicated letter. I know that if I were to try to cover those matters in two or three minutes I should fail.
Because ministerial powers of appointment are retained, the Welsh Water Authrity does not meet the criteria for being subsumed under Clause 62. Therefore, it will remain an independent body in regard to the water company. The Welsh Water Authority cannot be subsumed under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, the water company itself cannot be subsumed. There are no ministerial appointments to the water companies, and so long as that situation obtains no subsuming under Clause 62 can possibly occur. Therefore, in regard to the company's fear that it could be subsumed by the powers in the Bill, I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the case and that adequate remedies and precautions are built into the Bill. In the Government's view, my hon. Friend's amendments are not necessary. Amendment No. 217 would not prevent the devolving of water functions. In fact, it would make it extremely difficult to introduce practical arrangements to deal with the divided responsibilities of the water authority, part going to the Assembly and part to the Government.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this brief reply as an assurance that as the Bill stands neither the Welsh National Water Development Authority nor the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company can be subsumed—

It being Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 64, line 23, at end insert—
'The British Waterways Board. The Transport Act 1962 (c.46), section 1'.

No. 95, in page 65, line 13, at end insert—
'The Inland Waterways Amenity The Transport Act 1968 (c.73), section 110'. Advisory Council.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Schedue 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62

POWER OF ASSEMBLY TO ASSUME FUNCTIONS OF CERTAIN BODIES

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 130.

Division No. 173]
AYES
[9.01 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pendry, Tom


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Atkinson, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Henderson, Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bates, Alf
Hooson, Emlyn
Rose, Paul B.


Bean, R. E.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rowlands, Ted


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hunter, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Blenklnsop, Arthur
Janner, Greville
Sever, John


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Buchanan, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Canavan, Dennis
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Cohen, Stanley
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawford, Douglas
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Crawshaw, Richard
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cryer, Bob
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thompson, George


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tomlinson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds Watt)
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dolg Peter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watt, Hamish


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mitchell, Austin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ovenden, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Freud, Clement
Padley, Walter
Woodall, Alec


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


George, Bruce
Pardoe, John



Gould, Bryan
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Ted
Parker, John
Mr. Joseph Harper,


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Grant, John (Islington C)




NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William


Banks, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Leon
Dodsworth Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brooke, Peter
Drayson, Burnaby
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brotherton. Michael
Dunlop, John
Gray, Hamish







Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Griffiths, Eldon
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Tim


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shepherd, Colin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Hannam, John
Molyneaux, James
Silvester, Fred


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sims, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael
Spence, John


Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


James, David
Percival, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grlnstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Jopling, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Townsend, Cyril D.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Viggers, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wall, Patrick


Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy
Wells, John


Langford-Holt, sir John
Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Younger, Hon George


Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, R.



Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr, Spencer Le Marchant,


MacGregor, John
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Jim Lester.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR WALES

Amendments made: No. 297, in page 26, line 37, at end insert—
'(12A) Section 62 above shall apply in relation to the Welsh Commission as it applies in relation to the bodies there referred to'.

No. 322, in page 26, line 26, at end insert—
'(d) section 49 of the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Act 1973.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

WATER

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 129.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 66

PLANNING

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 148, Noes 128.

Division No. 174]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Henderson, Douglas


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkins, Ronald (Presten N)
Dean, Joseph (Leads West)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Atkinson, Norman
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Bean, R. E.
Douglas-Mann, Eruce
Janner, Greville


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bishop, Rl Hon Edward
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boardman, H.
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)



Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Buchanan, Richard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freud, Clement
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cohen, Stanley
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maclennan, Robert


Crawford, Douglas
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Madden, Max




Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Roderick, Caerwyn
Thompson, George


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tierney, Sydney


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James


Mlkardo, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tomlinson, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mitchell, Austin
Rowiands, Ted
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Newons, Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Ward, Michael


Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David


Ogden, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Watt, Hamish


Ovenden, John
Snape, Peter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitehead, Phillip


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Pardoe, John
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Park, Georgs
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Parker, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Ted Graham and Mr. Alf Bates




NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Banks, Robert
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bitten, John
Hodgson, Robin
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
James, David
Rhodes James, R.


Brooke, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Buck, Antony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Mark
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lamont, Norman
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Channon, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Dunlop, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Elliott, Sir William
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Spence, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Viggers, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Weatherlll, Bernard


Grieve, Percy
Mudd, David
Wells, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael
Wlnterton, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony
Younger, Hon George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley



Hamilton, Michael (Sailsbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Percival, Ian
Mr. Anuhony Berry and


Hannam, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Haselhurst, Alan

Division No. 175]
AYES
[9.26 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Penhaligon, David


Anderson, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Radice, Giles


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Atkinson, Norman
Henderson, Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hooson, Emlyn
Rose, Paul B.


Bates, Alf
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rowlands, Ted


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hunter, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Janner, Greville
Sever, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Boardman, H.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spriggs, Leslie


Buchanan, Richard
Kerr, Russell
Steel, Rt Hon David


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Canavan, Dennis
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Strang, Gavin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Cohen, Stanley
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Coleman, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crawford, Douglas
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thompson, George


Crawshaw, Richard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tierney, Sydney


Cryer, Bob
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dempsey, James
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Doig, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watt, Hamish


Dunn, James A.
Mitchell, Austin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ovenden, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Padley, Walter
Woodall, Alec


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


George, Bruce
Pardoe, John



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Ted Graham


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pendry, Tom





NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holland, Philip


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Banks, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hurd, Douglas


Benyon, W.
Fairbairn, Nicholas
James, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jopling, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brittan, Leon
Gorst, John
Knox, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lamont, Norman


Brooke, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brotherton, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
Lawrence, Ivan


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon
Lawson, Nigel


Carlisle, Mark
Grid, Ian
Le Marchant, Spencer


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael
Luce, Richard


Channon, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macfarlane, Neil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacGregor, John


Clegg, Walter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hannam, John
Mather, Carol


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Haselhurst, Alan
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Drayson, Burnaby
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miscampbell, Norman


Dunlop, John
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger







Molyneaux, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rhodes James, R.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ridsdale, Julian
Stainton, Keith


Mudd, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Tebbit, Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Newton, Tony
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Onslow, Cranley
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sainsbury, Tim
Wall, Patrick


Percival, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin
Wells, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sims, Roger
Younger, Hon George


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sinclair, Sir George



Raison, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rathbone, Tim
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9

INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN PLANNING MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 68, line 28, after 'matter', insert 'concerning Wales'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 28, line 18, leave out '(a)'.

No. 100, in page 28, line 20, after 'transfer', insert
'or, as the case may be, the granting of the rights concerned'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Clause 68, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

STAMP DUTY

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 28, line 38, leave out from 'made' to 'the' in line 39 and insert 'by, to or with'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

DETERMINATION OF ISSUES AS TO ASSEMBLY'S POWERS

Mr. Timothy Raison: I beg to move Amendment No. 315, in page 29, line 16, at end add
'or whether the failure to take any action constitutes a breach of the law'.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 342 in page 29, line 16, at end add
'and without prejudice to the foregoing, the Attorney General and any other person may institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings seeking a determination of any question whether the Assembly is in default in the fulfilment of any duty placed on it or transferred to it by this Act and seeking an oder requiring the fulfilment of such duty, provided that no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney General unless that person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty.'.

Mr. Raison: The Committee will agree that the clause is very important. It supplements the limited provisions of Clause 35, which relate only to reserved matters or to matters to do with the European Community. Clause 72 empowers the Attorney-General to take proceedings against the Assembly if it exceeds or proposes to exceed its powers. I think that that provision is entirely right.
However, the clause does not provide a mechanism for ensuring that the Assembly carries out the law of the land. In a sense it can be said that it covers sins of commission but does not cover sins of omission. I am told by one of my hon. and learned Friends that it covers malfeasance but does not cover non-feasance. My


amendment seeks to do that. It seeks to cover failure by the Assembly to carry out any action, within its own terms, which is a part of the law of the land. As I understand it, the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is also concerned essentially to do the same thing.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that my amendment takes two lines to say what it has to say whereas my right hon. Friend's amendment takes nine to say what he wants to say. I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who wrote a report on this matter, for his support. I think that after writing his report he must agree that a two-line amendment is invariably better than a nine-line amendment. But I have a nasty sneaking feeling that there will be some lawyers or clerks in the Committee who will say that the nine-line amendment is necessarily better than the two-line amendment.
The problem that my amendment seeks to discuss arises from the nature of this rather absurd Bill. The essential ingredient of this Bill, unlike the Scotland Bill, which was bad enough, is the attempt to separate the law-making from the executive power.
Those who argue that we are talking in this Bill about very much the sort of relationship that exists between central and local government in my view have got it quite wrong, because the Welsh Assembly is meant to take over certain of the powers, which may include supervisory powers, of central government. In no sense is that Assembly to be seen as a variant on local government.
It seems to me that if we are to have the scheme which is put forward in the Bill it is absolutely essential that there should be some power of the type I am proposing. Without such a power, the laws could become a mockery and Parliament—this House and the other place—could be made to look impotent.
It is also possible that we could have a Welsh Assembly which could use non-compliance with, or non-enforcement of, the law as an important political weapon. I do not think that if we have a Welsh Assembly it will normally seek to flout the law of the land. I believe that by and large it will be responsible. It may occasionally be committed to views

which I rather deplore, but I think that it will be perfectly serious.
However, when we are making constitutions, as we are now, we have a duty to consider the worst possibilities rather than assume that everything will be carried out in an atmosphere of airy congeniality and good wishes. Therefore, it is entirely proper that, as I have said in previous debates, we should be prepared for things going wrong. That, essentially, is what my amendment is about.
Before saying a little more in the development of my case, I want to raise a question to which we should have an answer, even though the answer may well be fairly obvious. The question that I should like to put to the Attorney-General, who I am glad to see taking part in the debate, is this. Is it the case that the Assembly's actions can effectively be only actions that are specifically assigned by law to the Secretary of State? In other words, if one is considering the powers of the Assembly which are transferred to it, is it fair to say that those powers are simply those which our existing laws say are responsibilities that lie with the Secretary of State?
9.45 p.m.
In the major fields of education, housing or health, does the Assembly have any powers except those which, under our existing statutes, are assigned to the Secretary of State? I do not think that I need labour the point. As the Attorney-General knows better than I do, in any statute we are liable to find certain duties which fall on local authorities, and other provisions which say that the Secretary of State shall or may—it may be a power or a duty—do such and such.
If I understand the Government's scheme correctly, what is transferred to the Assembly has nothing to do with what the local authority is required to do but has entirely to do with what the Secretary of State is required to do. Often the job of the Secretary of State is to make sure that the local authority does what it ought to do. I should like the Attorney-General simply to clarify this point, to make it clear that what we are talking about is simply the transfer of the powers of Ministers to the Assembly rather than in any sense giving the Assembly a whole range of activities within the devolved fields.
I suppose it is the case, therefore, that any action handed over to the Assembly which is not assigned by law to Ministers is technically ultra vires. The Assembly in itself has no control over whether local authorities provide education or housing or social services or services for the disabled—except in so far as the existing laws say that the Secretary of State shall make sure that the local authorities provide services for housing, education, the disabled, or whatever it may be.
I hope that I have made that point clear enough for the Attorney-General to be able to answer. It seems to me that there is confusion about this question. In talking about the supervisory role of the Secretary of State, I mean not just those rather sinister powers which sometimes appear at the back of legislation but the financial powers which have a great deal to do with making sure that the local authorities do what the Government want them to do.
It should be clearly understood that the Assembly cannot override the law. There is still some public misapprehension on this point. To support that statement, I shall quote briefly from an article which appeared in New Society on 13th April 1978, entitled "A Welsh Echo" by Gavin Weightman. He states:
Wales abolishes its area health authorities, new town development corporations (both of them) and its Central Advisory Council for Education.… In fact, there are no firm prospects of the proposed Welsh Assembly doing any of these things.… The point is that, after devolution, it could if it wanted to.
I believe that those statements are wrong and that the Welsh Assembly could not abolish its area health authorities, it could not abolish its new town development corporations, and it could not abolish its Central Advisory Council for Education. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that Wales does not have a Central Advisory Council for Education. It is on exactly the same Vote as England, which by statute is meant to have a Central Advisory Council for Education but which since the days of the Plowden Committee, on which I had the honour to sit, has been in abeyance and therefore in breach of the law. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would confirm that the statement put forward in the article that I have quoted is an incorrect statement and a misunderstanding of the position.

Mr. Hooson: Of the two new town development corporations, one has already been absorbed into the Development Board for Rural Wales.

Mr. Raison: I will not dispute that. I am trying to get at a more important point in this context, which is that if an Act of Parliament says that there shall be a central advisory council, or area health authorities, or new town development corporations, it is not within the purview of the powers of the Assembly to say "No, we shall not have one after all." I may be wrong about new town development corporations. I do not claim to be an expert in this matter. But it is very important that the public should understand the nature of the powers which are put forward in the Bill.
Having raised that point, I should like to turn to one or two specific examples of where these sins of omission might occur. Basically, they must occur where the law, in effect, says that the Secretary of State "shall" do such and such. In other words, what we are talking about—if I understand the position correctly—is not what appear in Bills as "may" clauses but "shall" clauses. I am referring to those matters where there is a clear duty on the Secretary of State to behave in a particular way.
Where the law simply says that a local authority shall do something—or that an individual shall or shall not do something—I imagine that that is a matter for decision by the courts. What we are concerned about is the situation where the Secretary of State has a particular burden.
I should like to give one or two examples of what I have described as "shall" clauses. It is quite difficult for a non-lawyer Back Bencher, unarmed with research assistants and so on, to comb the statute books as thoroughly as Ministers would if they were in an equivalent position. Life is too short, and my knowledge of the law of the land is too limited, to do more than bring forward one or two specific examples.
One example which I found was in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 where Section 24 says that:
The Secretary of State shall by order … provide for the granting of planning permission".
This refers to what are generally called general development orders. In other


words, that particular Act does not say that the Secretary of State "may" provide by order for the granting of planning permission. It states that he "shall".
I do not envisage that the Welsh Assembly would seek to upend, or not to implement, that particular notion. But it is just possible that it might take a totally different view of planning requirements from that which is embodied in the law of Britain as it stands. It is reasonable that we should be sure that the Assembly is not able to honour this particular law in the breach rather than in the observance.
Better examples can perhaps be found in the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, where there is a sequence of sections which lay duties, as opposed to powers, on the Secretary of State. Section 3 states:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make provision for the medical and dental inspection at appropriate intervals of pupils in attendance at schools maintained by local education authorities".
Section 4 says:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements in England and Wales, for the giving of advice on contraception,
and so on.
Section 5 says:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish by order in accordance with Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act—
(b) authorities, to be called either Area Health Authorities or Area Health Authorities (Teaching) in accordance with the following subsection, for such areas in Wales and the said regions as he may by order determine;".
Section 6 says:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred on him by subsection (1) of the preceding section and the following subsection so as to secure—
(a) that the regions determined in pursuance of those subsections together comprise the whole of England, that the areas so determined together comprise the whole of Wales and those regions and that no region includes part only of any area;".
As I have said, I do not think that it is likely that the Welsh Assembly would want to overthrow any of these provisions, but it might. It might decide that it does not wish to have that form of organisation for the National Health Service in Wales. In other words, it might decide that it is not prepared to enforce the law

of the land as embodied in the 1973 Act. Therefore, it is very important that we know where we are. The question which I put is, what will happen if the Assembly decides not to operate the law as it is set out?
Very good examples of the problem are to be found in education, a subject on which I touched in an earlier intervention. Sections 70 and 71 of the great 1944 Education Act lay a duty on the Minister, or Secretary of State as he now is, to provide a register of independent schools and to serve notice of complaint on independent schools which do not meet certain standards, and so on. In other words, the 1944 Education Act recognises the existence of the independent sector in education and says that the Secretary of State has certain duties which are in a sense duties of supervision but which are also duties of support for the independent sector in education.
It is conceivable that a Welsh Assembly is elected which is not very keen on independent education and which decides that it does not wish to operate these provisions of the 1944 Act in terms of independent education. I am asking the Attorney-General to say what will happen in that case, and the purpose of my amendment is to make sure that it will not be within the power of the Welsh Assembly to take that kind of decision in flat defiance of the law as set out by Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: It will be possible for the Scottish Assembly to do precisely that.

Mr. Raison: Of course, because the Scottish Assembly is a legislative body. I take the hon. Member's point, but for the moment I want to concentrate on Wales.
I give one other example from education where perhaps the politics are the other way round. This, again, is an example on which I touched in an earlier debate. It relates to the provisions of the 1976 Education Act which set out to impose comprehensive education on every local authority regardless of whether the authority or the people of the area wished to have it. Section 1 of the 1976 Act provides that local education authorities must have regard to the comprehensive principle. But, interestingly enough, when it comes to the way in which that is to be enforced, it gives the Secretary of


State only a power and not a duty to enforce.
Up till now, I have been talking about areas where the word "shall" is used and there is a duty. Now there is a duty on the local authority to have regard to the comprehensive principle, but there is only a power with the Secretary of State to make sure that the provisions of this Act are carried out.

Sir David Renton: What my hon. Friend has said of the Secretary of State would appear under Clause 72 to be equally true of the Attorney-General. He is merely given power—he "may" institute and the Assembly "may" defend proceedings for the determination of any question. If the object of the Attorney-General being mentioned in the Bill in this way had any force, one would have thought that he would have been placed under an obligation so as to ensure that the statute was observed.

Mr. Raison: That is an extremely important point. I was not proposing to touch upon this question of the place of the Attorney-General. He does not appear directly in my amendment, and I have the feeling that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) will say a little about the Attorney-General specifically. So I shall not be drawn, other than to say that is an important part of this debate.
I was saying that the 1976 Education Act opened up the possibility that local authorities in Wales might decide not to implement the provisions of that Act. The Assembly might be sympathetic the other way rather than with the views of the present Government. It might therefore do nothing about making sure that the local authorities operated the provisions of the 1976 Education Act. Although in principle I should be delighted if that occurred, I hardly feel that the present Government would be happy with a situation where it was possible for both local authorities and the Welsh Assembly to defy the intentions if not the strict letter of the 1976 Education Act.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. Friend agree that particularly in education there is potential for conflict very near the
388-90
surface. In many parts of Wales although there are—

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

WALES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Sir A. Meyer: As I was saying, there is a potential for conflict here in that if there is a majority in the Assembly which is determined to enforce comprehensive education in the strict sense of the word, it might take objection to the emergence of something that was close to a grammar school. On the other hand if there is a majority that is devoted to the interests of the Welsh language, the structure of Welsh education would move far from the comprehensive principle.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an interesting point.
What would happen if the Assembly rejected the 1976 Act in principle and did not ensure that it was enforced? I do not think that the Assembly will spend all its time refusing to operate the law of the land but there are people wanting such an Assembly whose passionate desire is to leave the United Kingdom. There are some, like the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who is sitting on my left, who wants to see Wales as an independent country in some sort of mystical relationship with England. We must recognise that all sorts of things could happen.
When we are making a constitution we should be prepared for difficult moments rather than rely on good will the whole time. There is a serious deficiency in the Bill as it stands. The Attorney-General has power to intervene only when the Assembly commits sins of commission. The fact that the Bill does not apply to the Assembly's failure to carry out the law of the land is a grave deficiency. I hope that the Attorney-General will recognise this and accept my amendment.

Mr. Brittan: I hope that it will be convenient for me to speak also to Amendment No. 342 which is grouped with this amendment so that the Committee may consider them together. I entirely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has said and I certainly support his amendment and the spirit behind it.
He made some modest disclaimers at the outset of his remarks. He has no need of a lawyer to assist him and we have learnt enormously from his own research into education.
Clause 72 enables legal action to be taken by the Attorney-General to stop the Assembly exceeding its powers but does not provide means for ensuring that the Assembly performs the duties conferred upon it by the Bill. We believe that this is an important gap in the machinery which needs to be filled to ensure that the Assembly can be prevented from not carrying out the duties that are imposed upon it.
The essential difference between Amendment No. 315 and Amendment No. 342 is that the latter amendment gives the right to bring action not only to the Attorney-General but to some other people, the identity of whom I shall go into in a moment. This relate, to the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) who pointed out that the clause is permissive in that the Attorney-General is not under any duty to institute proceedings. Even if Amendment No. 315 were accepted and the scope of the clause were extended to non-feasance as well as to malfeasance, it would still not impose a duty on the Attorney-General.
There are two ways in which that problem could be dealt with. One is the way I am proposing in Amendment No. 342 which is, in appropriate circumstances, to give persons other than the Attorney-General the right to take such action. The second alternative, I suppose, would be to impose a duty on the Attorney-General, but as the whole point at issue is whether the Assembly has been in breach of its duties or has failed to carry them out, the only way in which the Attorney-General can have a duty

imposed upon him is to use words such as "The Attorney-General shall institute and the Assembly may defend proceedings for the determination of any question if it appears to the Attorney-General that anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is not within its powers or that the Assembly has failed to carry out its duties."
That would leave the discretion to the Attorney-General in the sense that he would have to be satisfied in his own mind that there had been a breach of duty because there could be no possibility of an objective requirement that the Attorney-General should institute proceedings if there had been a breach because it could only be his opinion whether there was a breach. It would always be for the courts to decide, in the last analysis, whether that were so or not.
I believe that it is preferable to follow the formula in Amendment No. 342 which gives people other than the Attorney-General the right to attest to the question whether the Assembly has failed to carry out a duty that has been conferred on it.
Before going into the subject of that formulation, I wish to touch on one or two of the other matters dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. I should like tentatively to put forward a view and to attempt to answer some of the questions that he raised, if only to give the Attorney-General the opportunity to say whether he accepts what I have said on these points.

Mr. Dalyell: Quite apart from courts of law, can the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine what he would do if he were a Welsh politician elected to the Assembly and wished to make speeches if the Attorney-General sought to interfere with what might be points of law but undoubtedly would be seen to be points of politics?

Mr. Brittan: There would certainly be controversy on any occasion that the Attorney-General sought to exercise either the powers conferred upon him by Clause 72 or the slightly extended powers sought to be conferred on him by both these amendments. There is no way of avoiding that if there is to be devolution of this kind.
There are only two alternatives. Either one does not have a system of judicial review at all, in which case there is nothing to stop the Assembly exceeding its powers and doing whatever it likes, which would be quite intolerable and unacceptable, or alternatively a procedure of judicial review which at least means that in the last analysis the decision whether the Assembly has exceeded its powers is taken by the courts. Nevertheless, the raising of the issue is likely to be highly controversial politically. That is the essence of the scheme. As we are reminded so often, there is no way of avoiding it.
Before dealing with the differences between Amendments Nos. 315 and 342 in slightly more detail, I shall seek to express a view on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—namely, whether it is right that the Bill seeks to confer on the Assembly the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales.
I venture to suggest that the Bill does much more than that. That is made clear in Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. In Clause 10 the Assembly is given the powers as regards the charges given to Ministers of the Crown that are
specified in the first column of Schedule 2".
In Clause 11 the Assembly is permitted to do anything that
it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreative activities".
That is in no way confined to what Ministers may now do.
Under Clause 12 the Assembly may
make arrangements for the provision in Wales for services for the war disabled and (b) may make grants towards the carrying on of public passenger transport undertakings in Wales".
That is not confined to what Ministers may do. Under Clause 13 the Assembly may
review the structure of local government in Wales".
I know of no power of a Minister to do that.
Even more important than that, the Committee will recall the debates that we have recently concluded on Clause 61, which enables powers at present exercised by independent bodies of the sort

specified in the two parts of Schedule 7 to be transferred to the Assembly. Those powers at present are exercised not by Ministers of the Crown but by bodies such as the Forestry Commission and the Housing Corporation as specified in Schedule 7.
If, therefore, an order is made under Clause 61, there may be a transfer to the Assembly of powers that have never been exercised by a Minister of the Crown. At the end of the day, we have a package of powers that it is fair to say is based upon, and the basic framework of which derives from, powers of Ministers of the Crown, especially the Secretary of State for Wales, but which, on the other hand, are considerably in excess of those powers. I see no move from the Treasury Bench so I suspect that my statement of the position is accurate.

Mr. Raison: I am fascinated and flabbergasted by what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. He has raised something that I had not taken on board. It seems that under Clause 11 the Assembly
may do anything it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreative activities".
Surely that deserves, as my hon. and learned Friend is saying, a full explanation. Does it mean that the Assembly may say, for example, that only the Welsh language shall be used in Welsh schools without any statute to back that action? It may be that I have been unobservant but I never appreciated the enormous implications of the clause. We deserve an answer from the Attorney-General.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has not been in the least unobservant. In fact, there has been nothing to observe. That is not because we have not noticed these matters or because we have not been vigilant. The reason is that the guillotine has fallen in such a way that it has been impossible to debate draconian provisions of the sort that I have outlined. It is at a late stage in our consideration of the Bill that we have to raise fundamental matters by a side wind and through the back door. That illustrates the argument that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has employed repeatedly and with devastating accuracy—that whatever provision of the Bill we examine there are underlying it problems of constitutional, political and legal magnitude


and scope that have not been faced by the Government and which the House of Commons rarely has an opportunity to deal with except on the surface.
I revert to the provisions of Clause 72. As there is no legislative power in the hands of the Welsh Assembly there may be no objection in principle to judicial review. However much the analogy with local government may be painful to those who seek to make political mileage out of the creation of an Assembly which, for political purposes, if it has to have any point at all, must be presented as something more than another tier of local government, in constitutional terms and as a creature of Parliament with no legislative independent existence, it must necessarily be subject to judicial review.
10.15 p.m.
It is interesting that normally the problems whether the Assembly has exceeded its powers will arise in ordinary proceedings between citizens or between a Government Department and a citizen. The point can always be taken that the power that the Department purports to rely upon is ultra vires the Assembly and therefore the law against the individual citizen should not be enforced.
That is the normal way in which questions of vires are likely to arise, but there may be a question of public intervention in advance to stop anything being done or to seek a general determination of vires questions before they have crystallised in a particular case.
I understand that it is to establish the standing of the Attorney-General in bringing such proceedings that Clause 72 has been introduced. Without that clause, it might be argued that he had no standing. However, there seems to be the gap that although this provision could deal with questions of malfeasance, it cannot deal with questions of nonfeasance.
While we are considering the normal way in which judicial review operates, will the Attorney-General explain why in the Scotland Bill special provisions and a whole schedule were introduced to deal with the question of the stage at which the constitutionality of what was being done by the Assembly could be challenged? There is nothing about that in this Bill except the provision that the Attorney-General should institute proceedings

that are the equivalent of the taking of the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before Scottish Assembly legislation can be enacted.
I take it that the only difference and therefore the only justification for the absence of the special procedure and the Judicial Committee is that there is no legislative devolution to the Welsh Assembly. I see that in relation to the Judicial Committee—it may be thought inappropriate to use the special court in that way—but I do not see how the same point arises in relation to the special procedure for considering questions of vires.
Although the legislative point does not arise, questions of vires will arise and it may not be appropriate to treat the Welsh Assembly which, if it is to be anything at all, will be an expression of national democratic opinion, in the same way as any other body set up by the House where the question of vires is considered in the courts in the ordinary way without any special procedure. I throw that open for consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: During the three recent Divisions, I wandered over to another place where noble Lords were discussing precisely this special procedure in the Scotland Bill—and I heard it being knocked into a cocked hat by Lord Scarman, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Dip-lock and others. I must not talk too much about another place, but this reveals again how many loopholes there are in the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Brittan: I am not surprised to hear the news that the hon. Gentleman brings from elsewhere. I was well aware of the anxieties on those points that were expressed in this House. The problem is that the procedures are full of difficulties, but the political problem is that without such special procedures, difficulties will arise if points of constitutionality or vires arise in ordinary litigation and are dealt with without special procedures.
However, the real point of difference is that Amendment No. 342 is not merely to provide a few more lines of verbiage but to provide an opportunity for persons other than the Attorney-General to institute proceedings to see whether or not the Assembly is in default and has failed to carry out a duty that has been imposed on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury gave examples of duties concerning education which are imposed at present upon Ministers but which will be transferred to the Assembly. One could go further in the same field and refer to Section 100 of the Education Act 1944, which requires the Minister, now the Secretary of State and in future the Assembly for Wales, by regulations to make provision for payments to education authorities for a whole variety of purposes. It may well be that the Welsh Assembly will disagree with some of the purposes prescribed under Section 100 and will feel disinclined to make regulations for such provision.
Similarly, the voluntary schools are totally dependent for the bulk of their payments for their maintenance on a payment by the Secretary of State. If that is transferred to the Welsh Assembly and the Assembly does not support voluntary schools, again, without a power to ensure that the duty is complied with, difficulties—to put it mildly—could arise.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my hon. and learned Friend help me with what I seem to see, at first blush, as a rather strong objection to his amendment? It extends the power of access of criticism to the situation of conflict beyond that of merely the Attorney-General to any other person, bearing in mind the political ramifications that exist, and yet the Attorney-General will have to consider these moves to see whether it is appropriate for the procedures to be followed. Can one not see here an immensely increased burden of work upon the Attorney-General, which it would be impossible for any one man to bear? If he tried to bear it, he would very soon be driven into his grave. If one considers the ramification of that, surely one must conclude that it is a proliferation of assistant Attorneys-General. We might have to get back to a situation in which we have, as in Cromwell's day, an Attorney-General for Wales—

Sir David Renton: Henry VIII.

Mr. Lawrence: —with all the bureaucracy that that involves, and one just gets into a madhouse. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will incline his mind to that point.

Mr. Brittan: I am tempted to agree, because the prospect is so horrific that even if there were the faintest chance of it occurring, one would wish to prevent it. However, in candour, I do not think that in this case the Attorney-General would have too great a burden upon him, and certainly no extra burden as a result of the amendment, because I suggest that the burden is on him already under Clause 72. My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the burden is a great one, but it is not rendered greater by Amendment No. 342 because under Clause 72 the Attorney-General may institute proceedings to see whether anything has been done which is in excess of the powers of the Assembly.
It is true that the Attorney-General is not obliged to do that, but I cannot imagine that any responsible Attorney-General would not consider it part of his duty to give serious consideration to the acts of the Welsh Assembly and to take action if he thought that the Assembly was acting in excess of its power and that there was no way of stopping that other than taking legal action.
It may be that the Attorney-General will find it possible to advise the Committee whether he would regard it as part of his duties, under the clause as it stands, to consider whether he should act in relation to the acts of the Welsh Assembly, whatever decision he ultimately comes to.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I do not see that any extra duty is imposed on the Attorney-General by allowing others to institute proceedings. If the Attorney-General has to consider whether to act, that is the end of his duty. But then the question is whether others should be allowed to act. I have confined the definition of persons who may bring proceedings to a limited category—
no such proceedings shall be instituted by any person other than the Attorney-General unless that person is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty.
The Attorney-General does not have to consider whether other people have the right to bring such proceedings, because he is not required under the amendment to operate any filter. They do not have to persuade him. They have the right, and the court has to decide whether they have the standing. I recognise that of


necessity the language that is used must be of a general kind and cannot precisely describe the people who will have the standing, but the words which are used, as the Attorney-General will know so much better than I do, frequently appear in statutes on a whole variety of matters conferring standing on people. One thinks of local government statutes which talk about "interested people" and other statutes which talk about "aggrieved people". Although those phrases are necessarily general, the courts have not found it an impossible burden to distinguish between those who genuinely have a legal interest or are aggrieved and those who have not.
Without going into the technicalities, one could fairly summarise it by saying that for these purposes persons aggrieved would be persons who would be affected in some way over and above the generality of the population of Wales. Who that would be would depend on the particular Act. But it does not seem that any tremendous harm is done by giving such people at least the opportunity to test in the courts whether the Assembly has failed to carry out its duty. The courts will readily be able to throw out those who either do not have the standing that is required to mount the proceedings or, when they do mount them, are shown to mount a challenge to the authority and vires of the Assembly which, on analysis, does not stand up. If the Assembly plainly has acted within its powers, the court can readily throw out the action.
It seems that unless we are content simply to leave the matter to the Attorney-General without any possible challenge to it other than a political challenge in the House of Commons, it is right that there should be some extra opportunity to take the matter to court. If the Attorney-General questions the wording of the amendment and accepts the spirit of it but would like the benefit of advice from parliamentary draftsmen to alter the phraseology, no one will be more pleased than I.
The alternative is every time to have even more political battles than the hon. Member for West Lothian fears, so that the question whether the Attorney-General ought to have acted but did not act necessarily has to be the subject of a challenge and debate in the House rather than possibly taking some of the wind

out of it by having another person who is genuinely interested or aggrieved seeking to move and persuade the court that the Assembly has failed to act.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: The issue raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on the sins of omission and commission of the Assembly is very important. Therefore, am I not at once entitled to ask: where are all those people who want it? We have the Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, his PPS, the Under-Secretary of State and no one other than a dissident Scot who, to use the words of Sir George Sharp, the local government heavyweight in Scotland, thinks that the schemes are crazy, impractical and useless.
The Attorney-General must not take it amiss if I say that he is extremely welcome to our debate. It is high time that my right hon. and learned Friend, with all his authority, came here to give authoritative legal opinions. I do not wish to trespass upon order but I must say that I have just been listening to the Lords debating some of the issues which the Commons never discussed. I am not criticising the Commons lawyers, but when I heard the speeches of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Scarman, and the interjections of Lord Diplock and Lord Dilhorne, and the non-answer from the Lord Chancellor—it was a very charming answer but a non answer—I really wondered what sort of mess we have got into.
Once the legal heavyweights applied their minds, it was revealed yet again that there are not manholes but yawning opencast gaps of enormous proportions in what we are discussing. The gaps are as large as the gaps in the Government Benches. I stood at the Bar of the other place and heard these serious men saying that of course this cannot be worked unless we have a constitutional court.
I am not sure that the House of Commons will be pleased when it wakes up and finds that the House of Lords suggests that the only way round the problem is to create a constitutional court as a side-wind to the Scotland Bill—as an afterthought. I have a suspicion that if we are to have a constitutional court in this country it will not come as a sub-amendment at the Report stage of the Scotland Bill. It needs a great deal more discussion.

Mr. Gow: In fairness to the Attorney-General, is it not right to say that this is the first appearance from him on this Bill, that he never appeared at all during the Scotland Bill, and that we had only intermittent appearances from the Lord Advocate? Should not the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pay tribute to his right hon. and learned Friend rather than rebuke him?

Mr. Dalyell: I was welcoming the Attorney-General with the generosity of spirit for which I am well known on this subject. Seriously, it is high time that other Ministers realised what is up. I hope that they have been reading the debates in the other place—particularly the legal contributions—with the assiduity of some of us.
I shall put two questions and then sit down. I shall cut out the long speech that I might otherwise have made. First, is it possible to resolve these problems at all without a constitutional court? I was persuaded by Lords Wilberforce and Scarman—who know far more about these matters than I ever shall—as to the necessity of it. We should have some comment on the question whether the Government at some stage will give their view, in the Commons, about the merits or otherwise of having a constitutional court.
It is fair for a non-lawyer to say that when this case has been deployed powerfully by some of the legal heavyweights in the land at least it requires an answer. I do not put it any higher than that.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This matter is more serious even than the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said. I hope that the Attorney-General will not take it amiss if I say that the major constitutional problems that arise from this Bill, and even more from the Scotland Bill, have not received one whisper of attention from a Government Law Officer. Compare that with what happens when we have a quasi-constitutional court in the other place. It is an abominable fact that the Government are introducing two measures with impossible legal conflicts, and we have not heard so much as a muted word from any of the Law Officers.

Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that the Scotland Bill has been absolutely savaged.

As far as I can gather from the Government Front Bench in the other place, there was no answer to the questions. It was floundering in seeking to reply, simply because there was no reply. The Lord Chancellor's reply was charming and ridiculous. I shall leave it at that.
When it comes to a question of this House and the Attorney-General ordering another Assembly not only not to do things but to do things, what kind of reaction is that likely to provoke? Here we come back to the political dimension. The idea of the Government, in the form of the Attorney-General, ordering an Assembly which will undoubtedly eventually be called a Parliament to do certain things will provoke just the kind of resentments upon which the nationalists will feed. Well may the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) smile. This will play into his hands. Think of all the speeches that he could make about the way in which the Assembly had been ordered by the Attorney-General to do this or not to do that.
It may not have been the Government's intention, but as I understand it from lawyers this can be construed in a perfectly understandable way to mean that never will Ministers have had such power to order people to do things. These powers will be greater than the powers that they have over local authorities at present. I do not know how Members of the Welsh Assembly will enjoy that. I promised not to make too long a speech, but really, really, really!

Sir David Renton: It may surprise the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to hear me say that, if anything, he has understated the legal complexities with which the Welsh Assembly will be confronted. This clause, under which certain powers are given to the Attorney-General, should require us to take stock of the legal position in which the Assembly will find itself. In spite of the considerable powers which are plainly stated in the Bill, the Assembly will find itself "cabin'd cribb'd and confin'd" in various ways. It will find that Ministers will be competing with it—that Ministers and, necessarily, the ombudsman will be acting as overseers and watchdogs. It will perhaps need what we have not had in this country for 400 years—an Attorney-General for Wales to try to sort out the difficulties for it. I only


hope that he will be of greater distinction than the last one—Mr. Rich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) invited me to comment on the drafting of his amendment. He has been exceedingly skilful in achieving his purpose with the greatest possible brevity. I hope that I do not appear disloyal if I say that on balance I prefer his two lines to the first five lines of the Front Bench amendment.
On the other hand, the proviso to the Front Bench amendment raises important constitutional issues which the House dare not ignore. It is one of the basic rights, not only of an Englishman or a Welshman but of a Scotsman, to have recourse to the courts and not merely to depend on the Attorney-General to take to court a matter in which he
is or would be aggrieved by such default or has an interest in the fulfilment of such duty.
The rights to sue, to prosecute, to maintain and defend the basic freedoms are not even granted by Parliament—they have been assumed throughout our long history.
If the Attorney-General—any AttorneyGeneral—is given the sole right in Wales to challenge in the courts any overenthusiastic use of its powers by the Assembly we shall have failed in our duty. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will comment specifially on the proviso that I have mentioned.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also explain the meaning of the first words of Clause 72—
Without prejudice to any power exercisable apart from this section"?
What powers are envisaged? Are they the powers of the Secretary of State, for example? In our debates on Clause 35, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to the "politically charged decisions" that the Secretary of State would have to make. Are we to assume that when the Secretary of State has exercised a power under the Bill, that is the kind of power that the Attorney-General will have to accept, whether or not, as an honest lawyer, he agrees with it?
That question is basic to the two amendments, to our understanding of the clause, and to the famous position of the Law Officers of the Crown, the best of

whom have been prepared to tell the whole Cabinet when they were wrong. That has not often happened, and it has not often needed to happen, but it is vital for the freedom of this country that it should happen. Suppose that the Secretary of State presumes to exercise his powers in a way which unjustifiably interferes with the powers which Parliament will have provided that the Assembly should enjoy—if the Bill gets the Royal Assent and the assent of the people of Wales in the referendum. In such a conflict, where will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand?
The hon. Member for West Lothian posed a question which I do not think it is really incumbent upon us to answer. He no doubt put it to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. But as I have followed the hon. Gentleman in this debate and have so greatly admired his pertinacity over both the Scotland Bill and this Bill in challenging not only the Government but Parliament in order to make sure that what we are attempting to do is right, it may not come amiss if I venture to make a brief comment on the question that he posed.
10.45 p.m.
I am expressing a purely personal opinion when I say this. The courts of this country—the High Court and the Court of Appeal, with final appeal to the House of Lords—are in essence all-embracing in their jurisdiction in terms of the various branches of the law. We have not so far contemplated the idea of a special constitutional court. I think that if we were to have a federal constitution we would have to have that, by analogy, perhaps with the Federal Supreme Court of the United States, in order to see whether vires and the entrenched provisions of such a constitution were being observed.
But when we are devolving to Wales or to Scotland, I would rather see—I repeat that I am speaking purely for myself—the Scottish courts interpreting the application of the devolution Act, if it ever becomes so, in Scotland, and the courts of England and Wales interpreting the devolution Act for Wales. Anyway, it would be very interesting to know whether the Government even have a mind on this matter. If they have, let us know what it is.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): It may be of comfort to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to learn what I am told. I was not present in the other place when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was. In relation to what my hon. Friend described as the heavy legal talent in that place, I am told that Lords Wilberforce and Scarman favoured a constitutional court and that Lords Hailsham, Diplock and Morris took a different view. On a Judicial Committee composed in that way, that it is a majority of three to two against.

Sir D. Renton: I am grateful for that intervention. It clears the air a great deal, and it means that we should be discussing the amendments in the context which we all understood when my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury moved his amendment, that we are considering powers which might be exercised by an Attorney-General in the courts of this land as they are and not as they might be.

Sir Raymond Gower: Did my right hon. and learned Friend note that the Attorney-General's response did not indicate whether the Government had ever given any thought to this matter?

Sir D. Renton: I had hoped that in the politest way possible I had indicated that one did wonder whether the Government had ever done so.
However, I have said enough. It would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were fortunate enough to catch your eye fairly soon, Mr. Godman Irvine, and therefore I shall sit down.

Mr. Peter Thomas: My intervention will be very short. It is most unfair that the Attorney-General, who apparently has made his first appearance in the Committee, should have been under attack by both his side and the Opposition. Therefore, it is only right that there should be a short objective intervention.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that these two amendments are put forward with a great deal of determination that something should be done to remedy a situation that inevitably requires to be changed.
Clause 72 is concerned with the institution of proceedings, and Clause 11 states the powers of the Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) thought that they were confined to the powers which the Secretary of State has at the moment. The Attorney-General will see that the Assembly may do anything that it considers appropriate to support, inter alia, the Welsh language. Perhaps the Attorney-General will apply his mind to what he might do, in the exercise of the powers set out in Clause 72, if an aggrieved person were to suggest to him that in the exercise of its powers in Clause 11 the Assembly had done something which caused considerable anxiety and distress to one or two people in Wales.
My hon. Friend referred to what might happen in education. This is of some importance, because in Clause 72 the Attorney-General has discretion to institute proceedings. I do not agree with my hon. Friend, who suggests that it would be mandatory. That could not happen. I do not accept that that would be so. But the Attorney-General is placed in an impossible position, is he not, as the Attorney-General for England, if the Assembly, under its powers in Clause 11, does something which causes distress to a large section of the community in Wales?
People may feel aggrieved, in that their interests have been affected and they are unable to take any action, because they believe that what has been done, although within the powers of Clause 11, may be outside what they consider to be the remit—if that is the word—of the Education Act 1944 in relation to the Assembly. There may, therefore, be something for the courts to decide. The Attorney-General would, as I have suggested, he placed in an invidious position. It would be a political issue, and he would have to decide under the discretion given to him in Clause 72.
For that reason, although I had reservations about Amendment No.342 when I first saw it, I believe that it really has force. The power to institute proceedings is limited to a certain category of people, namely, people who are aggrieved and who would have to prove to a court that they were aggrieved before they could proceed. All those people have an interest, and the interest would have to


be proved. The Attorney-General should think about this. It is something that may cause a future Law Officer of the Crown in England considerable embarrassment, unless something similar to what is contained in the amendment is accepted.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the former Secretary of State for Wales, from his ministerial experience, envisage any difficulties about an English Attorney-General being seen politically to intervene on what would be interpreted in some quarters as purely Welsh domestic issues?

Mr. Thomas: I envisage that there might be difficulties in certain circum stances. I certainly hope that we are not entering into a period in which Wales will not accept the Law Officers of the Crown, as Wales has in the past. In fact, Wales has accepted not only institutions such as the Law Officers of the Crown but the law of England. Only a few years ago the relevant wording was changed to refer to the Assize Commission of England and Wales. This is something that we not only accept but nurture in Wales.
Whatever development takes place, I hope that this Bill will not cause a rift, so that we shall say that we do not accept the Attorney-General for England and Wales. That is likely to be an embarrassment to the Attorney-General and his successors. I do think that something, such as is proposed in this amendment, should be thought of very seriously.

The Attorney-General: The last remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) are remarks which must lie at the very basis not only of the Bill as a whole but of the purpose of Clause 72.
Indeed, it is right that when we look at this clause and the powers generally which are thought to be necessary in a situation that we shall be facing when the Welsh Assembly is set up, we should look at it in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did. We are not facing a situation of, as it were, a hostile tribe; we are facing a situation in which there will be conferred upon the Welsh Assembly powers which are essentially powers of Ministers of the Crown.
That is just as true whether we are looking at the powers of Ministers which are transferred or at the powers of prerogative

nature which are contained, for example, in Clauses 11 and 12 and, to a certain extent, Clause 13. Those are the sorts of powers which are exercised by Ministers of the Crown even if they step outside what is perhaps properly or constitutionally the subject of Ministerial powers as such.
That is the first essential which one has to have regard to. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) put it clearly and forcefully at the beginning of his remarks, we are not talking about a super local authority, or anything of that kind; we are talking about powers held, or capable of being held, by a Minister in this country which will be held in the same capacity by the Assembly in Wales as a result of the provisions in this Bill and, of course, of any future legislation under which other powers may be devolved to it.
It is essential that that should be understood and recognised. Indeed, it is for that very reason that it has been thought necessary that this clause should appear in the Bill at all. In the ordinary way, when one is dealing with ministerial powers, one does not have the situation that the Attorney-General has the right to go to the court in order to question whether the use by Ministers of their powers is a proper use or not—whether it is ultra vires or intra vires.
On the other hand, if one is talking about a local authority there is no doubt that Ministers—the Attorney-General in particular—have that right. But here we are talking about ministerial powers—powers which are the exact parallel of the powers which at present are held by Ministers of the Crown—a Secretary of State or other Ministers.
Because it is recognised by the Government that it is desirable, in some way, to determine any conflict that may exist in future on the question whether the powers are those of the Secretary of State in London or those of the Assembly in Wales, notwithstanding that they are ministerial powers, this provision has been inserted in the Bill to enable the Attorney-General to—

It being after Eleven o'clock. THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

VALUE ADDED TAX ON SUPPLIES BY WELSH ASSEMBLY

Resolved,
That section 19(4) of the Finance Act 1972 shall be amended by inserting before the words "and any part" the words "or of the Welsh Assembly".—[Mr. John Smith.]

THORN ELECTRONICS (FACTORY CLOSURES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: On 5th April, Thorn Consumer Electronics Industries Limited announced firm proposals to close down in July its Bradford and Shipley television factories, leaving only an isolated design and development team of 80 engineers in Bradford. This cataclysmic decision, since the word "proposals" used by Thorn is merely cosmetic, will force 2,100 workers and executives into the dole queue, bringing misery to them and their families. It will also damage the work prospects of future generations of local school leavers, impoverish the Bradford region, and undermine the long-term competitive ability of the British television and components industry.
Not a word of appreciation for the past services of its staff appeared in Thorn's official announcement. No vestige of serious concern for its staff—no element of loyalty or commitment to them—is yet obvious. The announcement was buttressed by the publication of some selective statistics seeking to show that technological change demanded massive cuts in overheads and mass sackings. Thorn's Bradford staff insist that the statistics are misleading.
On the same day that the closure was announced, Thorn advertised in the local Enfield Press for 22 different types of worker under the savagely ironic heading,
It pays to work at Thorn.
Those at Thorn have repeatedly and successfully enlisted the help of Government Ministers and local Members of Parliament in order to limit Far Eastern imports

and to prevent the opening of a television factory by Hitachi in Durham in competition with Thorn, but Thorn now discharges that debt of gratitude by treating Ministers and Members of Parliament alike with contemptuous indifference.
There was neither advance consultation nor advance notice either to Ministers or to Members of Parliament, and Thom's thanks to both is to smash the Government's regional policy by closing its factories in an intermediate area, which Bradford is, and concentrating in the South-East.
I naturally assumed that to close down of one of Europe's largest, most successful and modem colour television factories must mean that Thorn was in financial difficulties. So I looked at the 1977 Thorn Industries report. To my amazement I found that net profits, including television rentals, of the consumer electronics division were £57·4 million—a jump of nearly £10 million compared with 1976. Most of this came from rentals, but the chairman, Sir Richard Cave, said that a small increase in manufacturing profits had been achieved.
Japanese imports have only 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom colour market, and since the PAL licensing system prohibits Japan from exporting to Europe colour sets over 20 inches, and since Hitachi was forbidden to manufacture here, one could scarcely imagine that here was a scenario for closure at Bradford.
Undoubtedly, there have been technological advances but this trend is not new. If these advances alone endangered Thorn in Bradford, it is astonishing that Thorn did not say so months ago in its arguments to show what additional damage Hitachi's coming to Britain would do. The powerful argument that Thorn already needed to cut 2,000 people was never used in that debate, and MPs were permitted to assume that no Hitachi in Durham meant continued manufacture at the main Thorn factories at Gosport, Enfield and Bradford.
This technological evolution cannot have taken Thorn by surprise. Therefore, I am sceptical about it as a reason for closure. After all, Thorn employs 74,000 people in the United Kingdom. It has plenty of room for relatively painless contraction by natural wastage, by phasing out the hundreds of those over 65 and by


voluntary redundancies. This course was not taken. Instead, there is evidence of a determination to close. Good television models, such as the 9000 and 9200, have been transferred from Bradford. Problem models such as the 9500 have been transferred to Bradford. The 9500 required 1,000 design changes while actually in production and the work force coped nobly, but the development costs were laid at Bradford's door.
The suspicion must arise that Thorn wishes to close Bradford as part of a long-term design to withdraw from manufacturing and, instead, to import foreign sets for distribution through its profitable rental outlets. Even if this is not the case, Thorn's recent history, including the closure of the Skelmersdale television tube factory, with the loss of 1,400 jobs, does not indicate too robust a commitment to fight for Britain.
Bradford employed more than 4,000 people in 1974. Now it is 2,200 and in July it may be none. Can Thorn be persuaded to change its mind? That is crucial for Bradford. Bradford has a first-class work force, working on the premises, with a brilliant design team. Industrial relations have improved dramatically over the past two years. The workers are capable of great things if they are not impeded by London management. But enthusiasm, skill and reputation for quality are only part of the answer.
Thorn must spend more on research and development and forward planning. It is an utter disgrace that with its huge resources it is having to import 80,000 colour portables from Germany. Why? Because it fails to anticipate the market trends and thus has no colour portable yet of its own. It waits to see what succeeds elsewhere before developing its own model. What an indictment! Thorn has made no real move in video cassettes despite the great future for these.
Thorn must also spend more on market research and advertising for sale. Aggressive marketing is needed. The trouble is the depressed psychology of Thorn Electronics' senior executives. If Thorn can develop the will, Bradford can survive and prosper and contribute to the general Thorn success story.
The staff is now putting forward detailed plans for survival. I do not

propose to go into those or to anticipate them, but what is necessary is that Thorn should not just patiently listen but should seriously listen at the meetings to be held to discuss those proposals. If Thorn does not listen, Bradford's serious unemployment figure will rise substantially.
I now come to what the Government can do to assist. Thorn, in Bradford, in its main factory, is divided into two parts. No. 1 factory is the old Baird factory, and across the road is the modern 1969 television factory which, I believe, is owned by the Norwich Union. It is generally conceded that there could be a withdrawal from the No. 1 factory as a move to cut overheads. In order for Thorn to derive benefit from such a move, it is essential for the No. 1 factory swiftly to be sold or let.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us tonight of the Government's proposals to afford assistance to ensure that overheads can be cut, but may I ask what the Government intend to do about this challenge to their original policy? What pressure will they bring on Thorn to be mindful of the need to keep jobs in the intermediate areas? Those are matters which everybody in the Bradford area will listen to very carefully indeed.
I know that the Minister, in common with all hon. Members from Bradford and the Bradford region, was distressed by the surprising announcement by Thorn. Tonight he speaks on behalf of the Government, and he knows that if regional policy is to mean anything at all strong efforts will have to be made to ensure that the Thorn main board is brought into discussions to achieve a change of mind in the directors who run the Thorn consumer electronics subsidiary.
Nobody who has met the executives of the work force recently, as have Bradford Members of Parliament, can fail to be impressed by their conviction that there are solutions to these problems or by their conviction that the statistics and general picture presented by the Thorn consumer electronics management is defeatist and distorted. The executives are convinced that there is no overwhelming argument for closure. They believe that, given the will, there is a need for serious examination of the position and scope for the continuous operation of Thorn, in


profit for the company, in satisfaction for the work force, in general prosperity for Bradford, and in tribute to the Government's regional policy—a policy which it is essential should succeed if the British regions are to continue to be worth living in.

11.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): I first want to make some general remarks about the position of the consumer electronics industry.
The difficulties of the industry in the United Kingdom have been evident since the dramatic fall-off in demand for consumer electronic goods, notably colour televisions, in 1974. At that time the United Kingdom industry was geared to producing 2·5 million colour television sets per annum, but since then demand has dropped to its present level of around 1·5 million sets, and forecasts do not project any significant increase in today's level in the foreseeable future. I may add that today's position is in no way due to the increase in VAT from May 1975 to April 1976.
In addition, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, modern production developments have brought about a need for considerably lower levels of employment. The whole of the United Kingdom consumer electronics industry faces a period of rationalisation and reorganisation if it is to be able to face the challenge of competition. However, it should be noted that the sector working party report, in paragraph 6.9, said:
The SWP believes that the size of the labour force necessary to its 1980 objectives will not be significantly different from that in 1976.
At present the Government are providing encouragement to the industry through their support of the inter-industry arrangements that are designed to restrict imports of consumer electronic goods, principally from Japan. The Government have also taken direct action to limit the import of portable monochrome television sets from Taiwan and South Korea. These actions have provided the industry with a breathing space in which it can reorganise.
In recognising that, the consumer goods sector working party of the Electronics

EDC of NEDO has commissioned a consultancy study to consider the performance and structure of the United Kingdom electronic consumer goods industry. It will present its detailed findings as soon as possible. They are expected at some time early in the summer.
It is extremely surprising that Thorn should have produced a proposal to close the Bradford plant when the working party is producing a report on the industry. The action by Thorn is clearly pre-empting any conclusion that the study may make if it pursues the draconian proposal to close the Bradford plant. In the meantime, the major and underlying problem within the industry—that of over-capacity—has been considered under the Government's industrial strategy by the sector working party. In its annual report, which was published last December, it was recommended that the industry's capacity should be rationalised by between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.
My hon. and learned Friend presented a strong case. I shall deal in some detail with the Thorn closure at Bradford. The loss of over 2,000 jobs in an area of high unemployment is a severe blow to the local community. I share the concern of the work force and those hon. Members who have connections, like myself, with Bradford. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry—the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—has an exactly similar concern. At a meeting last week with several hon. Members my right hon. Friend asked for a meeting between representatives of the Bradford work force and the Thorn management, with himself in the chair, to discuss a possible alternative proposal that is now being drawn up by representatives of the Bradford work force. Steps are being taken to set up the meeting to take place on 25th April.
It is heavily ironic, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that the proposed closure comes shortly after the controversy over Hitachi. The industry made much of the likely adverse effects on unemployment if Hitachi set up production in the United Kingdom. Thorn and other parts of the industry, both managements and unions, were keen to lobby the Government on the possibility of Hitachi


setting up production in this country, and understandably so given the problem of over-capacity, Thorn's enthusiasm for communicating with the Government seems to have evaporated on the closure proposal. We were told of the proposal only on the same day as hon. Members and the unions. It is, as my hon. and learned Friend said, something of a stark contrast of attitude.
A job loss of this magnitude would be tragic, and would be made even more so by virtue of the fact that it would fall in an assisted area. Assistance is given—Bradford is in an intermediate area—precisely because unemployment is greater than in other areas. Bradford is a programme authority under the Government's proposals for the Inner Urban Areas Bill. It ranks for some significant form of assistance because of those problems. To rob Bradford of these jobs is, as my hon. and learned Friend said, to fly in the face of the Government's regional policy.
I understand that the company argues that it is impossible for it to obtain the savings both in manpower and in overheads to enable it to remain viable unless a whole manufacturing unit is closed. The company claims that for various reasons—principally that other important activities beside colour television assembly are undertaken at its remaining plants—Bradford is the plant proposed for closure. It must be said that out of approximately 9,000 employees only 100 are employed on research and development. That is a very small number for such a competitive area of activity and for the development of new jobs to replace those that are inevitably being diminished within the industry.
In its report the sector working party recommends, in paragrph 8, that
no support is given by the Government to the creation of additional capacity within the industry at this stage. Further, that the Government and its agencies should consider support for the eliminatoin of spare capacity from the sector, and for the creation of alternative employment for the plants and work forces concerned.
We think that sector working parties have an important role to play in laying out a general strategy for industry. Clearly, in its report the working party envisaged discussion of its proposals. We are awaiting the report on the industry,

commissioned by the working party, before embarking on a detailed assessment of the position.
Thorn's immediate proposal for closure of the Bradford plant ignores the recommendation in the report for a planned reduction in capacity, the possibility of Government support and the creation of alternative employment. We have not given any support to the creation of additional capacity so we are playing a part in the general strategy envisaged in the working party report.
If workers at Thorn's are to be given a chance to demonstrate their ideas to retain production, the company must be serious in assessing the proposals and not simply watch the three weeks go by while it cynically plans to issue redundancy notices to finish at the summer holidays.
The shop stewards, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, have many ideas. They claim that Bradford can be made to work, and work well. If we are to succeed in retaining our manufacturing base as a trading nation, we need to harness the undoubted enthusiasm and energy that is available from working people who build up a relationship of trust between themselves and the management. It would be rendered doubly difficult to build up such a relationship under the threat of the issue of redundancy notices.
Any assessment of capacity in the industry must be made by means of joint discussions and not by a unilateral declaration from the executive suite. People who give their lives to work have the right to be treated with decency and respect by the representatives of the owners of capital. Lives are more important than capital.
I should like to deal with some of the specific points put forward by Thorn's regarding the closure. The company claims that it needs to save £5 million of overheads and that the matter is immediate. Thorn is not a poor company. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the profits for two years, I should like to go further back.
From 1970, the net profits of Thorn Consumer Electronics are: 1970—£20 million, 1971—£24·4 million, 1972—£29·5 million, 1973—£40·2 million, 1974—£48·2 million, 1975—£47·4 million, 1976—£47·7 million and 1977—£57·4 million. It is


clear that Thorn has not been unsuccessful in achieving net profits of considerable magnitude.
Thorn occupies a dominant position in the television rental industry and separate figures for manufacture are available for only two years. In 1972, manufacture accounted for £11·3 million of profits and rental for £18·2 million. In 1973, manufacture accounted for £16 million of profits and rental for £24·2 million. It is a fairly safe assumption that within the profits for 1977 manufacturing accounts for a reasonable part.
In these circumstances, it would be reasonable to suppose that Thorn is able to make some provision for research and development in providing new products and so providing new jobs. Electronics was to be the great growth industry to replace some of the traditional industries, such as textiles, in which Bradford has been affected by reverses.
Clearly, against that financial background there should be room for considerable manoeuvre by this gigantic capitalist enterprise. If it finds that it can afford to run only part of the site in Bradford—the site consists of two areas, the old Baird factory and another factory that is less than 10 years old and is the most modem and largest television factory in Europe—the Department of Industry could examine the possibility of converting the older part of the factory into units for small firms.
We have recently had a feasibility study in Calderdale and we are now widening our area of examination for such a possibility. I emphasise that it is a possibility. We have made a serious examination of a mill in Calderdale, which has not proved satisfactory, unfortunately, but certainly we would be willing, if there were a possibility, to enter into an examination of this property in order to reduce the overheads, so that Thorn could entertain the possibility of retaining an important number of jobs in its major Bradford factory.
This possibility can be considered, however, only if Thorn is willing seriously to re-examine the position, taking into account the proposals put forward by shop stewards. We have no powers to compel Thorn to take a decision either

way. Contrary to popular myth, we do not have enormous powers of intervention in industry. We can only persuade. I hope that Thorn can be persuaded that its proposal should be reconsidered and that serious discussions can be entered into with a view to placing Bradford on a viable basis, taking into account the plan put forward by the shop stewards and the points so ably raised tonight by my hon. and learned Friend.
My hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the plan of the shop stewards with enthusiasm. I have not seen the details of the plan and nor has my hon. and learned Friend, so far as I know. But certainly what has impressed us is the enthusiasm, the determination and the dedication of the work people's representatives that we have met. In my view, this determination and enthusiasm must be harnessed into British manufacturing industry if we are to succeed in harnessing all our people's talents for the future.
Not to consider seriously these proposals but to treat them merely as part of a time consuming exercise would be to generate cynicism and disenchantment and that is something that we must set our eyes against.
If I may repeat my words, I very much hope that serious discussions can be entered into with a view to placing Bradford on a viable basis, taking into account the plan put forward by the shop stewards and the points so ably raised by my hon. and learned Friend tonight.
In conclusion, a great tribute is due to my hon. and learned Friend and other Bradford Members of Parliament who have taken up this cause and pressed it so ably. They have taken up a cause when they were met with a proposed decision on which they were not consulted, and on which the shop stewards' representatives were not consulted, and they have sought to reverse this decision in order that meaningful and proper discussions can be entered into. I hope that their efforts, and the efforts of the Government and of all the parties involved, will result in success, and a reassessment of this very serious proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.